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 2017/05.

Script and API module for constraint checksEdit

Hello there,

In the past few months, the development team has mentored a student, Olga, to help us developing a user script that displays the constraints violations on the item pages.

To use the script, add the following line to your user/common.js:

mw.loader.load( '//' );

You will see an icon   next to violations. When you click it you will see the full report.


This script is based on a new API module for constraint checks that one can use to check constraints on items and statements. At the moment, the constraint checks are only derived from the property discussion page constraint templates, not directly from statements. They are then stored in a database table. We are running a script to update this table every now and then or when you ask for it. Also note that some constraint checks are disabled (for example the format check). In the future we will support adding and updating constraints on property statements and we will implement support for some constraints that are currently still missing.

If you try it, feel free to give us feedback! You can also add comments or subtasks on Phabricator (see the ticket for the API module and the user script).

If there is no major disagreement, we would like to turn this script into a gadget in the next days.

Thanks go to Olga and all the developers that helped her providing this new feature :)

See also:

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems promising but it doesn't work for me. On Saint-François-de-Sales Church (Q962691) for example, I see no icon for EgliseInfo ID (P1644), while there is two values... — Ayack (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Some bugs:
  • Qualifier constraint violation icons are placed on every qualifier of any statement that has any violating qualifier, rather than just the particular violating qualifier itself. This is very confusing.
  • "Target required claim" messages don't say what the missing statement is, "Qualifiers" messages don't mention which qualifiers are accepted or prohibited, "Range" messages don't say the minimum/maximum, and "Value type" messages don't say what value type is required.
  • Some properties such as P570 have the text "⧼wbqc-violation-message-range-parameters-needed⧽" shown as the message.
  • Upon clicking "edit" for a statement and then clicking "cancel", qualifier-level violations disappear but statement-level violations remain.
  • The "Value only" constraint does not work.
--Yair rand (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ayack: Still no icon for EgliseInfo ID (P1644)? I see one now.
@Yair rand:. Thank you very much for your reports. Do you have some examples for your points #1 and #5? About the content of the messages, we're currently working on it to improve them. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): The script doesn't work when the "Drag'n'drop" gadget is selected. When I deactivate it I see the icon. — Ayack (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. This problem is tracked here. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC) shows a type constraint for UBERON ID (P1554). This seems wrong. Maybe the tool doesn't check the subclass tree? ChristianKl (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: The tool does check the class hierarchy, but the type constraint demands that the item is a subclass of anatomical structure (Q4936952) or tissue (Q40397) – but median nerve (Q1364876) is an instance of nerve (Q9620). Either the constraint is incorrect, or the item should be changed to be a subclass of nerve (Q9620) instead – which one is right depends on how medical items are modeled in Wikidata, which I’m not familiar with. (Note that constraints are only imported from templates periodically, so if you update the constraint on the property talk page, it will take a while until it takes effect.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a button to fix the issue that the constraint is about. For the Inverse Constraint there could be a one-click solution to create the inverse statement. ChristianKl (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good work.
    • I just notice a problem that I hadn't noticed on Special:ConstraintReport, but was already present there. The text on constraint violations for required properties constraints is misleading. On property talk pages, the templates for Ivan A. Krestinin's bot it reads "Item: items with this property should also have .." while the script displays "This property must only be used when there is another statement using the property defined in the parameters.". We should keep to closer to the words of the templates.
    • I think the "required qualifier constraint" fails.
    • Maybe the color of the icon could be different depending on whether it's a mandatory constraint that is broken or not.
      A question mark for non-mandatory constraints and the (current) exclamation mark for mandatory constraints could do.
    • If the constraints have parameters (e.g. item constraints), maybe the parameters could be larger then the explanatory text and placed above that.
    • For single value constraints on identifiers, maybe need to re-word it: if an item does have several identifiers, these should obviously all be included. Presenting these as violations might lead people to remove one or the other.
    • BTW could you re-load the constraint definitions?
      --- Jura 03:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely love this feature! There is only one thing that I find slightly odd: some constraints take parameters, and the value of these parameters is not integrated in the description of the conflict. These values are replaced by a phrase such as "the property defined in the parameters", and the actual value of the parameter is displayed underneath. I find this very hard to read. For instance, instead of:

Conflicts with
This property must not be used when there is another statement using the property defined in the parameters.
property: headquarters location

I would rather like to read:

Conflicts with
This property must not be used when there is another statement using the headquarters location property.

I do understand that it's harder for you to produce this output (this probably requires some changes in the API, and makes translation a bit harder), but I think this would be really worth the effort. − Pintoch (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Including it in the text might make localization and wordings based on mandatory/non mandatory status more difficult.
    --- Jura 05:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: We’re working on the messages (here’s a checklist), it’ll just take a while to update all the messages and then for the changes to be deployed. Once that’s done, we plan to remove the parameters from the UI altogether, since they will no longer be necessary. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  Single value: this property generally contains a single value.
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/Project chat#Single value, SPARQL

The ID entered is unknown to the system. Please use a valid entity ID.

  Item: items with this property should also have coordinate location (P625)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/Project chat#Item P625, SPARQL. Count by value

The ID entered is unknown to the system. Please use a valid entity ID.

  • @Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): To allow us to compare, could you link the equivalent messages from the above two constraints. In English, it's currently:
    1. "Single value: this property generally contains a single value."
    2. "Item: items with this property should also have coordinate location (P625)"
If there is different wording for mandatory constraints, please link that as well.
--- Jura 08:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: The messages are here and here, and currently read:
  • This property must only have a single value. That is, there must only be one claim using this property.
  • This property must only be used when there is another statement using the property defined in the parameters.
  • This property must only be used when there is another statement using the property with one of the values defined in the parameters.
“Single value” doesn’t have any parameters, so I wasn’t going to touch it. “Item” has parameters, and I want to improve it, but I haven’t gotten to it yet. You can look at Change 353569 to see the proposed improvement to the “Conflicts with” message, which is similar.
We don’t distinguish between mandatory and non-mandatory constraints yet (see T164254), but once we do, I think the plan is to display the constraint differently, not to use a different message. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Ok. Sounds good. For consistency with the current approach, would you switch the texts to the ones at Module:I18n/constraints?
--- Jura 11:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: I hadn’t seen that before… where is it used? But as far as I can tell, those texts wouldn’t allow us to include the parameters in the message… --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): I'm sure you probably did as I think it's the text currently in use at Wikidata (on property talk pages).
--- Jura 17:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: ah, then I just didn’t know the connection :) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): can you sync the descriptions in your code with these? Do you need help with this?
--- Jura 06:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jura1: Well, there are several problems with them…

  • The parameters for these messages are totally different. Sometimes, they contain %s, which can be replaced with an actual constraint parameter, but sometimes they instead specify “[item A]” or “[item B]”, which is impossible to replace (because it’s localized).
  • In some cases, I don’t think the messages are suitable. For example, the “one of” constraint: “value must be one of the specified items. Please expand list if needed.” (emphasis added) – the last part makes sense in a template, but really doesn’t make sense to display in the constraint report, because it’s not at all obvious to the user where this list resides (and in fact that will soon change, once we import constraints from statements).
  • As far as I understand, copying the existing translations (which would be the main benefit of using these messages) is impossible – if I add them to the i18n files in the code, doesn’t import them, and they’re erased the next time updates the i18n files.

I can compare the messages with the ones we currently have and try to carry over any improvements, but I don’t think using those messages directly is possible, sorry. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Sounds good, I think it's sufficient if you try to keep the (English) wording from Module:I18n/constraints and adapt it for variables where you want to use them.
--- Jura 18:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Okay, thanks. I’ve updated all the messages now, by the way, so you can see them all here, and they’re also available for translation on I think they’re probably going to be deployed sometime next week. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Category pages for properties with missing statementsEdit

With the new visibility of constraints and a few complaints that certain recently recreated properties don't have all the relevant statements filled, I have the desire to better understand which properties lack certain statement.

For that I think it would be good to have a few category pages:

It would also be great to have the show the age of a property on such a page. ChristianKl (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean with “categories”. I suggest to use simple queries such as this one:
SELECT ?prop { ?prop a wikibase:Property . MINUS { ?prop wdt:P31 ?instance . } }
Try it! This is for missing instance of (P31) claims, but you can easily insert any other “missing” property as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
When I say category I mean pages like . ChristianKl (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be good to someone place the task of working through those lists on ChristianKl (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We could add the tracking categories to {{Property documentation}} or Module:Property documentation, that shouldn't be problem. But adding properties or items directly to categories is impossible, given that they are not rendered from wikitext. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, than let's stay with a SPARQL solution. I created to have a page that lists queries about properties with missing statements. One issue with the current solution is that the list doesn't show property name and description. It would be great if someone with more SPARQL experience looks at it and makes any improvements he can think of. ChristianKl (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I updated the queries and how they are displayed on your project page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Currently the constraints are set in a way that a property needs two property examples. Can you change the SPARQL code in a way that it requires two examples instead of just one?
It would also be great to have a query for properties that lack label or descriptions in a given language. ChristianKl (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Also done. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Three is absolutely no requirement for more than one example, in most cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, there are constraints set on multiple properties that assert that properties should have at least two examples. I'm open to changing this fact but changing it likely needs some form of consensus. ChristianKl (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
You don't need consensus before making an edit, just like nobody bothered to obtain it before adding that bogus constraint. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek:I think it would be good to have an automatic category for properties for which no constraint is set. ChristianKl (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Those in templates or those in statements? What should produce such a category? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
A simple Petscan query suffices here (diff between Category:All Properties and Category:Properties with constraints including sub categories). —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the one's in the template produce the warnings that are served with the script. In a perfect world I would like that all constraint management is done via the statements but currently the working constraints are in the templates. I think there are some properties where nobody set the constraints via templates and it would be good to have a list of them as long. ChristianKl (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Informal versions of given names; nicknamesEdit

Bill Thompson (Q4911143) officially has the given name "William", but is known to everyone by the short form of that name, "Bill" (just as my passport and my aged aunts call me "Andrew").

In Bill's case, I have found two ways to record this.

Which is preferable, and why - or is there a better way to do it?

To me, the former is more logical, but the latter, using an item rather than a string, is more structured.

Another option would be the former, but with short name (P1813) as the qualifier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Count" link at P1449 claims 30 times more uses as direct item-statements;
I would avoid values of qualifiers for basic information, this way queries would need only direct property relations (wdt:)
P735 is for passport name, nickname for anything else. d1g (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
What seems most logical is to use Andy Mabbett's first approach when both the formal name and the nickname are known. I would save the structure one given name (P735) for the nickname value ranked as preferred, and qualified as instance of (P31) = nickname (Q49614), for the case of a person who's nickname is known, and known to be a nickname, but the formal given name is not known. This, of course, would be rare because if you knew enough about a person to be sure the name was a nickname, you'd probably also know the formal name. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Instance of nickname??? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to qualify this with use (P366)? So the Bill is qualified as "Use" nickname. Noting that I can also see the deprecated as (P794) utilised.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian social media sites: properties needed?Edit

The two websites with the most values for website account on (P553), for which we as yet have no properties, are Odnoklassniki (Q1123836) and My World@Mail.Ru (Q4299858). Would a Russian speaker please look at whether we should have properties for them (i.e. how well-used they are on ru.Wikipedia and other projects), and if so how the formatter URLs should be constructed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Not a Russian-speaker, but Odnosklassniki is at least very popular in Russian speaking countries, so I would support creating a property for that site. Stryn (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we should have properties for both of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Join the next cycle of Wikimedia movement strategy discussions (underway until June 12)Edit

21:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Movie title vandalismEdit

Could somebody please undo all changes by User Arpyia[1]? The user added massively non-french titles as "french" lables to movies. This should be reverted as soon as possible, otherwise the complete lable section gets useless. -- 22:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And by the way, the system should automatically prevent users from doing so many edits in such a short period of time unless they have special permission if Wikidata wants to be taken seriously. -- 22:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If the movie doesn't have a French title, it is okay to use the movies original title as French label. All movie items edited by User:Arpyia seem to have no French title. --Pasleim (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
It is NOT okay! If a movie has no french title, then there should be no title entered. Otherwise you would have to add 5,000 "titles" for 5,000 languages on every movie page if the movie has no title in these languages. It would only be okay if the movie had been released under that title in France. But this is not the case. -- 22:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't mistake labels for title (P1476) statements. Statements are the part on Wikidata which hold the referenceable information. If a movie was never released in a French speaking country, one should not add title (P1476) with language code "fr". In contrast, the label does not have to be the "official" name. It's main purpose together with alias and description is to find and identify an entity. Users with the French UI should also be allowed to search for German movies. --Pasleim (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
But where is this "title (P1476)" on movie pages for translated titles, like a "real" French title for a movie that has been released in France? I have never seen it. And why wouldn't you find a lable, when it is the same as something that already has been entered? And what is the use of lable if it contains the same value in hundreds or thousands of languages? And why says it "enter a lable in French" then? -- 23:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
For example at Q160060 the French title "Le Discours d'un roi" under which the movie actually was released in France is only added as "lable" not as "title". This is the case for all movie pages. -- 23:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
If that was the released title and the field is absent, then add it, and reference it, it is a wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The film wasn't shot in France, so in Wikidata we would have a separate item for translations.
When you say "it never had a French title" you mean a "translation into French".
The King's Speech (Q160060) is a work item, not edition item; see Wikidata:WikiProject Books.
The biggest point is that translations aren't made by the same crew who shot a film.
Exact details about title (P1476) are under discussion now. d1g (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
"The film wasn't shot in France, so in Wikidata we would have a separate item for translations.": But you don't have it, do you? For years everybody put these translation into the lable fields
"When you say "it never had a French title" you mean a "translation into French".": No, that's not what I mean. User:Arpyia added the German title as French lable to German TV movies who never have been shown in France or any French speaking country. If this would become default behaviour, you would have thousands of identical lables for different languages for example for a German TV movie that never has been shown outside of Germany. If it where correct to add the German title as French lable, then it would also be correct to add the German title as Chinsese lable, Hindi lable, {name any language} lable. This would make no sense.
"Exact details about title (P1476) are under discussion now.": What does this mean? Where is this discussion taking place? -- 08:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know how it is going to be now. Will there again be a way to find out the official title of movies in a different country/language or will there be just a big "lable" mess with anything in it? Until the mass edits of User:Arpyia the lables more or less contained these titles and Wikidata was useful to find them out. No this is not the case anymore and I would really like to know a solution. -- 22:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I will try to clean-up the edits over the weekend.
--- Jura 06:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, it seems to be fine again now. -- 15:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Are montages acceptable as an item's image (P18)?Edit

I just found out that some items have a montage (example) as their image (P18) field. Is it acceptable?

I would argue that a montage is not acceptable, it is like hard-coded fake multiplicity where a single image is expected.

My app shows Wikidata items on a map and in lists. I want to use images as map pins and list thumbnails, it looks great for normal images, but for montages it just looks like a grid of indiscernible things.

Thanks! Syced (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For montages we have the property collage image (P2716). So I would say image (P18) should not be used for montages. --Pasleim (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This seems sensible. I wonder if we can run some kind of a query to find all image (P18) which are in commons:Category:Montages and move them across? Andrew Gray (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be great indeed! Anyone knows how to perform that? Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's a start - after a bit of massaging of PetScan, this list is 1179 items which use an image in the Commons montages category (depth 7, not including "Before and after‎" or "Then and now"). It will include some that use it correctly in collage image (P2716), of course, but I couldn't figure out quite how to distinguish those. Hopefully a start for someone to work with! Andrew Gray (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Bingo! This is a query for everything on that list which has P18 and does not have P2716. It's not perfect, but it gets 1095 results, so there's plenty to fix. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Montages are often used in infoboxes, which rely on P18 - so please be careful when removing these, and check the cases where the montage is being used as an image on Wikipedias. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
If a community explicitly wants montages in their infoboxes, they should use collage image (P2716) and only fall back to image (P18) if there is none. In my opinion :-) Syced (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Given that collage image (P2716) subclasses image (P18) I would expect that a template would still import the data. Does it work differently? ChristianKl (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
With the infobox templates I've worked on I've been linking specifically against P18. It is possible to change that to call P2716 first, and if that doesn't exist then it can fall back to P18. However, then there would need to be some way to say "the better image to illustrate this topic is not the montage", which is then getting complex ... it's easier just to let people set P18 to the best image to illustrate the topic, and just use that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Can anybody explain what "Auxiliary data matcher" is, and how it works?Edit

I've seen seen this user making very helpful "manual matches" in Mix'n'match, obviously by checking which items already exist in Wikidata by looking the catalog id in the values of the according property. However, I cannot determine a pattern as to when the user/bot runs, and on which catalogs. Particularly, I cannot understand why it runs regularly on catalog #432 (and matched 4634 items), but less so on #431, where it matched only 3776 items. This is kind of sad, because #431 is the catalog I actively work on. #432 is an exact, stale copy (differing only in the descriptions), yet it has hundreds of matches #431 lacks. I could not find any documentation about User:Auxiliary data matcher. It would be great if somebody can shed some light? Perhaps @Magnus_Manske:? -- Jneubert (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two "modes" here. One is if an item on Wikidata has been changed to use the respective property, and that property value exists in mix'n'match in the respective catalog, it will be auto-associated. A second mode is that, on mix'n'match import, a third-party property (e.g. VIAF) has been associated with a mix'n'match entry, and an item has that respective third-party property/value set; this will lead to a match as well. --Magnus Manske (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Source statements for items syntesized from authorities - recommendations?Edit

I'm going to import 1.3k items for economists, for which we have the GND ID (P227) and RePEc Short-ID (P2428) identifiers and information we can collect from a "join" of the authority files. (Of course we make sure that neither of the ids exist in WD so far.) The properties are:

  • name (from GND, and, if different, alias from RePEc)
  • English description ("economist" + the top level affiliations from RePEc)
  • German description ("Wirtschaftswissenschaftler/in + biographic description field from GND)
  • gender (from GND)
  • occupation economist (Q188094) (from RePEc)
  • birth and death data (from GND - not yet included in the examples)
  • and of course the respective ID values

I'd like to make clear which information stems from which source and would be very grateful for hints how to approach this in compliance with established best practices. (Help:Sources seems not to deal with such tasks.) Please take a look at my first take (examples: Richard Donald Rogerson (Q29961563), Bruce D. Smith (Q29961579)). Since I could not find a way to source description field (which may contain important and possibly contradictionary information in German and English), I've added comments to the references of the respective external identifiers. Perhaps others have found a better way to provide that source information.

Comments on the quantity of information (too much? too less?) and on the wording are also very welcome. Jneubert (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

T.seppelt (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC) GerardM (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Jneubert (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control

Add complete references according to Help:Sources#Databases to claims. Labels and descriptions to not require references, they are just there to disambiguate. Whatever information you provide there, should also in some way appear in the statements. See Help:Label and Help:Description for details, also regarding style guidelines. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy:: Thanks for the hints. "complete references" reccur on a retrieved (P813) with each stated in (P248), right? I'll happily add this. Jneubert (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
“Complete references” means that each and every (database) reference should contain stated in (P248), the database property with the identifier, title (P1476), and either publication date (P577) (if available) or retrieved (P813) (or even both). This is even the case when many “identical” references need to be added to the same item. I have edited Bruce D. Smith (Q29961579) to provide an example: Q29961579#P106. A publication date (P577) is not available for entries of this database, thus I omitted it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Despite it would be technically easy to add all the statements you suggested, I hesitate to follow your advice here, for two reasons:
  1. . it is perhaps information overload for people looking at this, as it duplicates information already provided and easy to look up in "External identifiers" section
  2. . Storing this information redundantly may cause inconsistencies if the information at the external id property changes (think of: It turns out that a GND id falsly covers two distinct people, and the id value is split up). This should be updated eventually in the external identifier property, but very probably not in every reference, where it may be stored redundantly.
For these reasons, I would lean more to leaving it at stated in (P248) and retrieved (P813) in cases where the external identifier for the record is already given in the according property. Jneubert (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Information at Wikidata should be primarily machine-readable, and machines have a different view on things. We thus need to prepare our data accordingly, although this sometimes contradicts our intuition and Wikipedia experience. It is particularly important to understand that the Wikidata web frontend is not an interface for actual data users, unlike for Wikipedias with it’s human readership. The Wikidata web frontend is almost exclusively a tool for Wikidatians (editors), while machines “read” our data via the Query Service or Wikipedia templates.
  • A typical scenario of data usage would be a Wikipedia infobox that pulls some data from the associated Wikidata item (say P106 of a person). It can directly use the information in the provided reference to deliver this reference to Wikipedia readers as well. Templates are designed to some extent along the guidelines of Help:Sources for reference processing. They do not look into other claims to find a reference, or parts of a reference. Wikidata was purposely designed to provide individual references for each and every individual claim.
  • Inconsistencies among IDs etc. are being worked on by the use of constraint reports. Depending on the type of properties, we apply certain constraint on the values etc., and violations are reported on a daily basis by a bot. If for instance IDs change or are duplicated, we find the items using this ID listed on maintenance lists. It is thus not a problem to deal with this type of redundancy.
MisterSynergy (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Convinced! And thanks again for your kind explanations. Jneubert (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The information in the description is different - providing only what is in the properties would mean to drop that information completely, because the correct wikidata items are not available to me in the automated process (and often would require intellectual research and perhaps creation of items for institutes etc.). On the other hand, the information is useful for disambiguation, in particular when the items are to be matched to other sources via Mix'n'Match. If we want to keep it, it seems appropriate to me to figure out a way to hint at its provenance. But of course, when we drop it, the issue does not occur. Jneubert (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Labels are another issue - they may differ in the sources. The GND names follow a very strict set of rules (which sometimes leads to unfamiliar results). The RePEc names are provided by the authors themselves, so they may be closer to common use - but sometimes authors are sloppy, provide everything in lower or upper case, or whatever. So I've chosen to provide the GND name as label and the RePEc name (if different) as alias. I'd think that it may be helpful to provide this provincance information as well. Jneubert (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no possibility to add a reference to labels and descriptions. An alternative would be to provide a useful edit summary which describes provenance. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming my assumption that there are no references for labels and descriptions - I came up with using a comment as part of the reference in the external identifier statement for that reason. Using the edit summary would be another workarround. But is there any way to provide a custom edit summary with quickstatements2? (I've only seen log entries like Added [en] label: Bruce D. Smith, #quickstatements; batch #579 by User:JneubertAutomated) Jneubert (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The comment (DEPRECATED) (P2315) property is highly disputed, as it holds unstructured data. It is currently nominated for deletion at Wikidata:Properties for deletion. There is also nobody looking for this piece of information in the qualifiers of the external-id property. I would just use the edit summary.
Custom edit summaries can be set by bot frameworks for sure. I did not work with QS2 yet, so I can’t help there. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: I've reformatted the threads a bit for better tracability - I hope that's ok.
Ok for me —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
New iteration: Example James R. Markusen (Q29963324) - with full references, removed comments (@MisterSynergy: Thanks for the hint at the deletion list!), and with dates of birth/death. Jneubert (talk) 16:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like an “okay” item for me, based on the fact that both databases do not provide more information (country of citizenship (P27) would have been nice). Regarding Wikidata:Notability I think that those items would be covered by #2 (“can be described using serious and publicly available references”, which both databases likely are). However, it would be great if someone else could confirm this. It would also be good if you can link the items to other items via claims. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that both items are notable because both databases are serious and publicly available sources. It's also worth noting that there should be a bot approval request for the specific task of important those values. ChristianKl (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint, the bot request is already on it's way - support welcome :) Jneubert (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
For the example item James R. Markusen (Q29963324) GND has information on his country (P17) and given that country names are unique it should be possible to import them.
The GND field "Beziehungen zu Organisationen" can be mapped to affiliation (P1416). Given that GND identifies the organsiations with ID's and we have the ID's for many organisations in our database there should be no disambiguation problem. ChristianKl (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I have considered importing country names and affiliations. However, that would require considerable effort (more than I can do now). Both come with issues: While the nationality is relatively reliable (changes seldom), it may be politically loaded in some cases (think Palestine). I'm quite sure, there are policies in Wikidata to deal with such cases, that may not be easy in an automated way, in particular if there should be subtle differences to the GND policies.
Affiliations are a very interesting use case (and extremely useful to have). The GND affiliations however may be out of date (they are not updated systematically). In most cases, the RePEc affiliations should be more current, because with RePEc's rankings for people and (indirectly) institutions, they have great incentives for authors to keep their data up to date. However, there are almost 14k of EDIRC institutions, three to four levels deep, and linked to RePEc authors and nothing else in the world. So that makes a full-fleged mapping project of its own.
The good news is, that any piece of data we skip now can be added easily later on. As a low hanging fruit, I plan to add GND date of birth and death to all "economists" in Wikidata which lack this information (and I will happily provide links to the code, so others can do the same for their domain of interest). Jneubert (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
While countries are politically loaded, it's not Wikidata's job to pass judgement of what happens to be a country. We report what other reliable sources say and if GND says that something is a country that's good enough for us.
Affiliation statements on Wikidata that aren't qualified with start time (P580) and/or end time (P582) don't "change". The statement means that there's was a time when the person was affiliated with the organisation, it's not a claim that they presently have that affiliation. ChristianKl
Hell NO! When we do not agree with the values of another source because they are wrong, we refuse them. We have done so in the past. When the GND has it wrong, we should not accept it. Exactly because we find that it is not reliable. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 20:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I've created an "todo" entry about supplementing items with properties from GND on the WikiProject Authority Control
I think GND's "Typ : Person (piz)" is a valid reference for claiming that the item is about a human. ChristianKl (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Do you think I should add an explicit source statement to "human", too? Jneubert (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Sources for "human" aren't as important as other sources but it's better if everything is sourced. Given that it isn't much effort and there are a lot of new entries that are created I would advocate sourcing it. ChristianKl (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I copy the entries for the field "Andere Namen" into aliases. At least for German. ChristianKl (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I was in doubt and finally decided against this, because GND has sometimes lots of alias names (e.g., Karl Marx (Q9061) - compare it's GND entry. Similar John Maynard Keynes (Q9317) / GND). Often variations are very slight, and in my eyes don't add much to findability, sometimes titles and other information are mixed in. What is worse, the variants don't come with a language tag (sometimes an indication in parantheses, appended in free text), so you would end up with, e.g., "German" aliases in all languages and scripts. I'm not aware of any method to filter these to some "relevant" subset. -- But perhaps that will be solved by somebody someday, and we could add such a subset of name variants later on. Jneubert (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Image uniqueness: are there tolerated exceptions?Edit

There is a constraint stating that image (P18) has to be unique, one per item.

But when I see an item like lion (Q140) I can start to understand what people might want to include several images for a single item, each image with a specific qualifier (in this example, male/female for animals).

Are such exceptions tolerated? If yes, is there a list or policy describing in what cases it is OK?

Most other cases of multiplicity have zero value, with similar or even sub-par images, logos, etc.

Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Right now we have two images for males/females in Q15978631.
I think that every textbook on anatomy presents both sexes, not just one.
My point is that we should allow multiple images, but only when it is meaningful.
In engineering 3-side/4-side images are standard.
See #Unique value constraint? at P18 talk paged1g (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I never understood why we have a unique constraint for «image», but in the case of male / female animal it make perfect sense to create a male and a female subclass for lions. Actually there is probably different datas for each (size, weight, mean lifetime, …) author  TomT0m / talk page 20:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I also think that the unique constraint should be removed given that there are multiple cases where it makes sense to have multiple entries. ChristianKl (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the constraint should in principle be removed (also buildings: interior and exterior ext); however, we should be careful that Wikidata does not turn into a trash can by users adding hundreds of images using P18 to the same item.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
i see when items are merged, that there are multiple images. Slowking4 (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
When we remove the property we could write Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) to say that the amount of images should be kept small and each additional image is supposed to provide a clear benefit. Maybe we could even say that there shouldn't be two images with the same qualifiers. ChristianKl (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Image: Most recent, or most recognizable?Edit

Let's say we have two quality pictures for a famous person, which one do we want for image (P18)?

  • Most recent picture, probably taken at an old age a bit before they died?
  • Most recognizable picture, when they reached their peak popularity? Obviously that picture will be a bit older, and maybe of slightly lesser quality (ex: lower resolution, black and white)

I am in favour of option 2, but just checking whether there are objections, thanks! Syced (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • A picture of a person in the prime of the activity they are known for seems more suitable than a picture of a person on their deathbed. Most of the time we don't have that much of a choice though. Pick a suitable one and add that.
    --- Jura 05:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree, although I think for living persons we should have the most recent one (as long as the quality is appropriate). Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      • best picture, that illustrates the subject the best. this will not be reducible to formula such as "most recent" or largest resolution. photo curation by selection for infobox is implied. Slowking4 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)s
    • It's interesting to have multiple images as being discussed here. Use of qualifiers (like point in time) can be used to find the relevant pictures. It is difficult to decide what's the best option since it is subjective. Jsamwrites (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Properties for circumstances of deathEdit

I'm trying to work out how we can say that Richard Lyons (Q7327521) was killed during the Peasants' Revolt (Q498871). place of death (P20) is for geographical locations, not contextual ones; killed by (P157) is for people; cause of death (P509) for the "medical circumstances", manner of death (P1196) for a broad classification (accident, suicide, etc). There doesn't seem to be one we can use for events - or am I just missing something obvious? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

significant event (P793) with qualifiers? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
significant event (P793) as a qualifier? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
What would that mean? What general meaning would P793 have as a qualifier? --Yair rand (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I am with Pigsonthewing's suggestion. Adding it would indicate that the death was associated with an event. Seems similar to how someone would have won an award for valour, eg. a military cross awarded resulting from the Battle of Long Tan (Q259526). Having it unassociated with the death has two separate data points.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
What kind of association does it indicate? How could one use this data? It seems really unstructured. --Yair rand (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
It is inter-relating a death with an event. Francis Sheehy-Skeffington (Q5482453) executed on the day directly related to Easter Rising (Q193689). Putting the deaths against the item for the uprising would be less relevant, however, show me deaths related to the event is relevant, especially where memorials exist listing names. Same for things like 9/11, Eureka Rebellion, +++ and the lists of events where an assignation is quite pertinent.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
"is related to" is not structured data. Specific properties need to show specific relationships. --Yair rand (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
subject of the statement (P805) is another idea. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Inscription (P1684) asks for a mandatory language which can only be a language with a language code?Edit

screenshot when adding a language to an inscription

I tried to add the language Numidian (Q35761) to an inscription (P1684) which wasn't possible since it doesn't have a Wikipedia or a language code? I'm not sure what the criteria are. I don't think this restriction is very sensible since inscriptions are often in an old language (like Numibian or Etruscan) and will never have their own Wiki.

Couldn't we change it somehow, so a language with an item is sufficient? --Incabell (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Having it's own Wiki isn't necessary for a language to be added to Wikidata but every language still has to be added individually. You can file a phabricator task to get the language added. Given that it has a ISO 639-3 code that should be possible. ChristianKl (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Incabell: For a monolingual texte, it's more simple You have just to follow Help:Monolingual text languages. --Fralambert (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks so much to both of you! I will do that :) --Incabell (talk) 09:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

SPARQL Code to find category items (instance of (P31)) that do not have sources that have an EN sourceEdit

I know nothing about SPARQL. Please help. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits 23:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by sources? If it is Help:Sitelinks, then:
Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Wikimedia_projects d1g (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: By sources I mean references to items of properties. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Use WD:RAQ and explain it more in detail there. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Should a country have itself as a country?Edit

To me it does not make sense that France (Q142) country (P17) France (Q142).

It is redundant. Is there any case where a user or app would think "Oh, is that country in itself? Let's check that property to find out whether it is or not!"

Should I remove such cases? Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

That is circular, have a look at what has been done for England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland (Q22) are each a country of the United Kingdom (Q3336843).  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Property talk:P17#Should countries have statements with country: themselves? --Jklamo (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I can imaging someone writing a script that looks at place of birth (P19) and then takes country (P17) to find the country in which someone was born. A country is a valid value for place of birth (P19), so the statement could help a person writing such a script. ChristianKl (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Allowing redundancy to make queries easier is a bad idea in my opinion. Should we add instance of (P31) musical ensemble (Q2088357) to all rock band (Q5741069) items because some developers don't know how to recurse (p:P31/ps:P31/wdt:P279* Q2088357) and thus might miss them? In the birthplace example, I just go up the administrative divisions until I get a country. Syced (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
If you think the proper way of finding the country of an town isn't to use the country property that's on the town but to recurse administrative divisions, why does the country property exist? ChristianKl (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
For things that are not administrative divisions, such as Afghan National Police (Q8568). You have much more Wikidata experience than me so I won't waste your time with this, but my personal wish is that one day all such redundancy will be avoided :-) Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The notion that from a place or administrative entity you get a country is wrong. Everybody who died in what is now called India before the start of that republic is not an Indian (for instance).. the same applies for many other "countries". It is why we have former countries. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Very true! So I guess we will have to admit that the example we were debating on ("find the country in which someone was born") actually has no easy solution. We will have to find a better example. Or move along, since I can live with this redundancy, and there is a lot of other tasks to work on before worrying too much about this :-) Syced (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In a perfect would the country property would be qualified in a way that allows you to check whether a town was indeed at the time of the birth in the corresponding counrty ;) I admit that practically this often won't be the case in Wikidata in it's current state but I see no reason why it couldn't be in the future. ChristianKl (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

How to say "located on $island" and/or "located in $X archipelago"?Edit

I'd like to find a way of easily knowing which island/archipelago/state a telescope is located in for use in location maps in en:Template:Infobox telescope, so I'm trying to find a good way of saying "Telescope is on the island of X". It seems that setting country (P17) to, for example, Hawaii (Q782) is generally frowned upon (in favour of links to United States of America (Q30)), even though the aliases for that property include "state". The next level down is located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), but the definition of that seems to be quite a mess, with all sorts of administrative areas underneath it (I tend to go for the smallest one, which I think is the norm, but that's normally city-level). There is location (P276), which is a bit more confused (I thought this was the catch-all, but it actually looks like it's only for movable objects - in which case I've erroneously added quite a few locations using this property so far...).

As far as I can see, we don't have a property for "located on island", or even "located in state" - would it be worth proposing these, or is there a better way to do this? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We have located on terrain feature (P706). Shinnin (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Shinnin: Thanks! Isn't that more "on Mauna Kea (Q131230)" rather than "on Hawaii (Q68740)", though? Or is it intended for both cases? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: the reason that country includes state is I believe for the variation "nation state".

Administrative regions have been through many iterations of names, and it is cascading as best I can tell; something can reside in the unit of a state/county/... or something smaller council/borough/... it is not inaccurate. One could even say that places could fall under multiple administrative locations, as a local council, and a state government as both impose their respective administrative requirements. So I would have used P131.  — billinghurst sDrewth 17:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Circular referencingEdit

Is it possible for constraint violations to be used to discourage referencing Wikidata on items (e.g. references imported from (P143)Wikidata (Q2013), reference URL (P854)*), and should this generally be done? (See also this discussion on enwiki.) Jc86035 (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think inferred from (P3452) would have been the correct way to use this kind of Wikidata-reference. Just as imported from (P143) that property is actually very useful to indicate provenance, although they are of course not an external source. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
#claims referenced by P143:Q2013 (imported from: Wikidata)
SELECT ?item ?property ?value {
  ?property a wikibase:Property; wikibase:statementProperty ?statementProperty; wikibase:claim ?claim .
  ?item ?claim [ ?statementProperty ?value; prov:wasDerivedFrom [ pr:P143 wd:Q2013 ] ] .
Try it! We have around 10.000 claims with imported from (P143): Wikidata (Q2013) in references. My query for reference URL (P854) with Wikidata unfortunately times out. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Using simply Special:WhatLinksHere/Q2013 also yields results (but not the URL references). Steak (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy, Steak: (Also pinging Fram from the enwiki discussion, and VIGNERON, who added a lot of these to railway stations with QuickStatements.) Should the references be summarily removed, or should they be kept until they're referenced with other things? Jc86035 (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Parts of it might be moved from imported from (P143) to inferred from (P3452), but this requires an individual manual check of each case (i.e. this is not a bot-able task).
  • “No internal references” is a Wikipedia policy, not a Wikidata policy. Both policies are correct due to the inherent differences of both project, thus they are not a contradicting. We definitely keep those references.
  • If you find external references for the claims in question, add them of course and still keep the internal ones. The “references” section indicates data provenance at Wikidata, not “external references” only.
  • Wikipedias that use data from Wikidata can accept or refuse references or even entire claims based on the nature of a reference. If you only want to use “externally referenced” data, you compare provided references against Help:Sources and only use claims and/or references that you are happy with. If imported from (P143)/inferred from (P3452) are not valid sources in your project (as typically the case for Wikipedias), you can just omit this claim entirely if you want to.
  • Another common misunderstanding of Wikipedia users is about the data that is collected here: we want referenceable data, even if it is known to be incorrect. It is thus not a problem if we import “crappy” data from Wikipedias, as long as we tidy it up at some point (using ranks and references). It is very useful in this case to have information about data provenance (via imported from (P143)), and tons of corrections flow back to Wikipedias which were otherwise not at all able to properly improve their “crappy” information.
MisterSynergy (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion the self-references should be removed. Wikidata cannot be a source for itself. If we would accept this, the door would be wide open for any kind of true unsourced data by simply stating "imported from Wikidata". It is not clear what the source is in the statements where there is already put Wikidata as reference. At least the exact item would then be required, but even then I would oppose to put Wikidata as a source. Steak (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of data reusers I think it's good to have these references be made via inferred from (P3452). ChristianKl (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi (thanks Jc86035 for the ping),
First of all, I *did* imported the data from Wikidata, so I don't really see the problem with saying it; would you rather prefer me importing data without saying where I took them from?
Then, I did it for a very specific case (adjacent station (P197) wich is a symetric property, a property where values are both trivial to find and uneasy to reference) and after some checking (for example check if the two stations are less than 100 km apart, then 50 km apart, etc. I found - and corrected - some errors but very few). Finally, the problem seems simple to me either: the data on the first item is correct, so reimporting it on other item is correct too, the data is wrong and reimporting give it twice more chance to be corrected.
I wonder if the problem is really with the property (imported from (P143), or inferred from (P3452)) or with the value (Wikidata (Q2013)). Maybe I would be clearer and better to put: ). What do you think?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I do think that would be clearer.
When Wikipedia imports values from Wikidata, they want to import only those values that have external references. As a result it's helpful for the purposes of Wikipedia when we use inferred from (P3452) for internal references. This allows us to have data provenance while at the same time allowing third-party data users like Wikipedia to see easily which of our claims have external references. ChristianKl (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree; use of inferred from (P3452) instead of imported from (P143) would be better here, and it should point to the specific item rather than to Wikidata (Q2013). Given the fact that the results set offered above is very homogeneous (almost exclusively P197 claims are affected), this might be a bot-able task after all. @VIGNERON: the way you used the {{Claim}} templated indicates a qualifier, but please use a reference. Just in case that’s not clear ;-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Does everybody agree and can I start a Wikidata:Bot requests? VIGNERON (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, I asked this query to be built. It shows items that have claims supported by the English wikipedia, but the item itself doesn't link to the english wikipedia. What to do with these items? (1000+ items) --Q.Zanden questions? 17:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
An item doesn't need to have a link to the English Wikipedia to be sourced by the English Wikipedia. Information could be imported from some list. It could also have been imported from an item that's now deleted. There isn't something we have to do about those items. ChristianKl (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Correct. For example, I imported the years where titles were approved from the grandmaster list in german wikipedia, but by far not all of the grandmasters have an article. Steak (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl, Steak:, but then I would use reference URL (P854) or something like that... Wouldn't that somehow be more logical? Or imported from (P143) with qualifier of (P642) Q(article from the wikipedia-page)? Q.Zanden questions? 17:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Q.Zanden: reference URL (P854) is not supposed to used for data from Wikimedia projects but for external sources. This allows Wikipedia to import all data that has an external source. Using "of" would be nice but currently that's not the practice for a lot of imported data. ChristianKl (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Hackathon & documentation sprintEdit

Hello all,

Just as a reminder, the Wikimedia hackathon takes place this weekend. A lot of people are currently hacking around the Mediawiki code and other stuff, in the venue in Vienna or remotely.

There is a track dedicated to documentation, where people will try to improve the documentation for our projects, make it updated, more understandable, more user-friendly. We plan to work especially on the beginner user doc for Wikidata, the Query Service and the constraint reports, Wikibase installation... and other stuff.

So, quite a lot of things should happen around the Wikidata: and Help: pages in the next days. If you want to join our taskforce, feel free to ping me! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Update about WikidataConEdit

Hello all,

Here are some new information about the WikidataCon event, that will take place in Berlin on October 28th-29th.

We just nominated the members of the two committees that will have an important role in the organization of the event. Thank you very much to all the applicants!

For all the other topics, you can freely join the volunteer groups, discuss on the talk page, suggest ideas.

I'm also glad to give you an overview of the next steps for the WikidataCon:

  • Scholarship application process: June 8th-July 31st
  • Call for submissions for the program: June 12th-July 31st
  • Registration opening: June 19th (two other ticket releases are planned in August and September)
  • Selection of the scholarships recipients: August
  • Review of the submissions for the program: August
  • Announce of the program: September 1st

This dates can still evolve, I'll keep you informed. For more information, check Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017.

Last but not least: in order to be able to provide scholarships, and help people who can't afford the travel and accommodation to participate, we requested a grant from the WMF. This grant will be reviewed soon, and you can help by endorsing the project. For this, you can add a message at the bottom of the grant submission. This would be very useful for the project!

Thank you very much, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Grant proposal for WD editor for WikipediaEdit

My proposal about the Wikidata editor directly from Wikipedia is at the last stage of consideration. In this regard, I would like to ask you to express your ideas and concerns, if any, on the discussion page. The idea is very close to the prototype of the Wikipedia editor by Wikidata team, but it is possible that the result will be different. —putnik 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Expertise needed - armorEdit

Wikidata's Fashion project could use help from an expert on armor (ancient, medieval, Japanese, or modern). Our worklist of armor and helmet items is here. Please help if you can! - PKM (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

What is the property for the date when a ship collides, or when an object is destroyed?Edit

Please answer and ping me as {{Ping|PokestarFan}}. Thanks. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: For ships look at Wikidata:WikiProject Ships/Properties #Significant events. - Kareyac (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Property for pattern of a textileEdit

Do we have a property that should be used to indicate the <pattern or motif> of a woven textile or other patterned object? Values might include things like paisley, palmette, gryphons <in> roundels, and so on (any instance of pattern (Q2083958) or one of its subclasses). - PKM (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

depicts (P180) looks to be the "nearest" one. - Kareyac (talk) 05:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Yachtmaster (Q476246)Edit

This item (Yachtmaster (Q476246)) is used as occupation for athletes competeting in the sport of sailing, but it's not a good choice. How can we fix this? --Cavernia (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

create a new item that's a better one to describe the occupation? If some of the language wiki's listed under Yachtmaster (Q476246) are better under the new item then you can move them too. ArthurPSmith (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sailor might appear as the correct item, but the meaning of this is seaman/mariner/seafarer, not an athlete competing in the sport of sailing. This confusion is also a case in Wikipedia, see Glen Foster. I've now created sailor, hopefully this will work better. --Cavernia (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Websites with no URL for 'official website'Edit

My thanks to MisterSynergy for this query which finds instances of website (Q35127) or its subclasses, with no official website (P856).

It currently returns 3118 items. These can be broken down into various types:

  • Items that are wrongly described as websites
  • Websites with no URL in P856 (which should have the URL added)
  • Defunct websites, with no URL in P856

In the latter case, I suggest the URL should be added, and an "end date" qualifier, if necessary with an "unknown" value. How, then should, say, an URL be included?

Also, how can the addition of URLs best be automated? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Plotting property usage over timeEdit

Constraint reports like Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P496 include an item count parameter, rendered as, for example, Items processed: 2125. For example in this edit it was incremented from 2122 to 2125.

Is there a tool that can extract this data over time, so that it can be plotted? Or perhaps someone has a bot that could so that? perhaps the figures could be added to each property page on, say, a monthly or quarterly basis? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The number used on the constraint pages isn't accurate. It doesn't get updated if they are no changes to the contents of the page, for example. Every property talk page shows {{Property uses}} though, you can use the revisions to get a overview. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's accurate enough; and although its not updated daily, plotting the number against time is good enough for my purposes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
A selection of properties (external identifiers with a BARTOC ID (P2689)) is since recently plotted on, created by User:JakobVoss. -- Jneubert (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hitting our 30 millionth item!Edit

Congrats Wikidata! We hit 30 million items! Or at least an item with code 30000000. (BTW The item is The Synergistic Activity of Thyroid Transcription Factor 1 and Pax 8 Relies on the Promoter/Enhancer Interplay (Q30000000)). PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits 17:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, Harej. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We have 26,242,154 content pages at the time of this writing. Saying we have hit 30 million item is misleading. In general I don't see it makes much sense to count items that we have delete in the amount of our items. ChristianKl (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The way I've been putting it is that we hit "item number 30 million," not that it's the 30 millionth item. Harej (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
And have to delete or redirect over ten percent of our newly created items... It's simply a valueless number. We should have more important and quality related indicators to be proud of. --Succu (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
i look forward to your participation here Wikidata:Item quality campaign, since it is a topic of critical importance. Slowking4 (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
and for that I look forward to the guidance on how we handle primary sources as references, especially where they are not web-based items. Adding a reference that doesn't exist within the system, for a new subject is problematic. People flee from that discussion. (it becomes my lips are flapping)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs).
It's possible to add a reference via stated in (P248). It works but the UX isn't as nice as it could be. Deciding on a different system isn't trivial but there's a wish to integrate Wikipedia citations more with Wikidata. See . That desire is partly what drives WikiCite which is currently happening. See also ChristianKl (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The UX isn't nice? Gross understatement for adding reference detail.

I understand the how and what; ... I state again the complexity of adding references of primary sources. It is simplistic to say use "stated in" as it is not that simple for many primary references. One has to go and create each record prior to its use, and add sufficient detail for it to be recognised and utilised by yourself (by chance you utilise the source again), or suitably detailed so some other sucker stumbles across it with the right terms so they can use it. Be it the parish register for Kensington for the baptism (and specifying which volume, ...), the parish register for Westminster for the marriage (all the details); then the parish register for Lambeth for the burial (and all the detail). To add all that reference detail for one person when I am trying to just add that single person is a 'big call'. As I have noted previously, it is far far easier for me to copy and paste record data and detail onto an author talk page at Wikisource, with its contextual additional information, than to add bit-wise reference detail here.

I will now stop "carrying-on" here as I am not wanting to be a broken record; but until that is greatly revamped it is hugely problematic and will simply not happen when editing person by person, and this is from someone who has done many '0000s of person by person data entry here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Beyound your personal user experience (Q1047808), billinghurst, do you have proposals how Help:Sources could be rendered more vivid? --Succu (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no issue with the page about creating a source — and I note that the process for creating an item is something that can be aligned with something like Wikidata:Wikiproject Book as a useful guide. After that it becomes the quality of the reference and "stated in" is less pertinent for primary sources, eg. for Ashton Keynes parish, eg. this; or as useful for what I added for date and place of death in Edith Sophia Hooper (Q18910300). We also need to be able to separate the creation of a source, from the following creation of a good reference. We need to introduce concepts such as type of reference (P3865), stated age at event (P3629), ...  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Saying that every person who adds a source is supposed to add author (P50) is not helpful when the goal happens to be to reduce the workload. It's also interesting that the page currently doesn't say anything about ISBN numbers. I think it would be preferable if a human just has to put in the ISBN number and the rest is done by bots. GND data is explicitely CC0, so a lot of data can be sourced in many cases without any issues. :
In other matters the copy reference tool is still broken in the sense that it requires a page reload (it didn't before the changes). Given that it's a tool that has to explicitely activitated it's also not ideal for new users. It would be better to have a tool with deeper integration for the purpose than this gadget. It would be great if the tool could then also also copying from one item to another.ChristianKl (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I am yet to find a primary source that has an ISBN. Similarly ISBNs are really a 'modern' concept and only available for the past 50 years. Many books don't have them. Your proposal for ISBN is useful though would be better equipped to just better populate WD with book data and its submission, either when creating a source, or at any time. I would welcome any tool that allows better input into WD. Something that inhales old book data from Internet Archive would be nice, and then allows the separation of work and edition data.

I would agree that sourcing has to be made easier, and I believe that is the challenge. Having to jump out of a page to create a source is a problem, not have a readily applicable framework for the source type slows things down. Some of the tool work done for the WE-framework is interesting in giving a ready form to complete, and I can see that there you could enter an ISBN and pre-populate a form to submit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It's one of the more important things I'm doing here since the establishment of Help:Sources. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Harej: Welcome to the club :-) Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources as not a perfect solutionEdit

  • Modern books, books that you find in your local library, tend to have an ISBN. Consequently identifying a book by their ISBN as a source is a major improvement. When you are out of luck and you have not, it is seriously relevant to have details for that book as its lack of visibility make the book questionable as to its notability.. Books have been republished in the last 50 years or whatever.
  • Books without an ISBN that are in Wikisource / Open Library never mind, can be referenced to this source. Perfect solution.
  • There are many lists on the web that are the reference for every list item. A good example are awards; they have their own websites but we also have Wikipedia articles with such lists. You may want individual references .. but hey sorry.

My personal point is that we need to be more relaxed. Often people take all kinds of things for granted that is not shared universally. As a rule of thumb something like 4% of a source like Wikidata is erroneous; that makes for 1,200,000 errors. Adding sources does not really make a difference, seeking differences with other Sources does. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@MartinMalmsten: Is this something for KB to take a look at? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Height of actors and modelsEdit

How to write 5 feet 6 inches? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

66 inches. You have to convert everything to use the smallest unit. --Edgars2007 (talk) 04:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
in measurements, 5 1 feet = 12 inches. MechQuester (talk) 13:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
MechQuester means 1 foot = 12 inches. For the height of people, you may also like to use metre (Q11573) or centimetre (Q174728). Jared Preston (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't envy American, having to use these non-decimal conversions all the time ... but who would want to switch to the metric system anyway? You'd have to get a new set of tools! Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is Petscan working?Edit

I tried logging into Widar. Afterwards, and after I refereshed the page, i still am ot "logged in". MechQuester (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I logged out and logged in successfully You have authorized WiDaR to edit as Billinghurst. Congratulations! You can always log out here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Same. You have authorized WiDaR to edit as PokestarFan. Congratulations! You can always log out here. PokestarFan • Drink some tea and talk with me • Stalk my edits 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #261Edit

sports league level (P3983)Edit

Please see sports league level (P3983). Property Wikidata property example (P1855). I have used series (P179) but I don't think is correct. Do you have any suggestion? The number with out the corresponding item I thing is not enough. Xaris333 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to add geographic areas on Wikidata yet?Edit

Hi all

I remember a little while ago seeing something about a way of adding area files for locations on Wikidata, is this possible yet? If so and I have a .kml file with the data in how do I import it into Wikidata (I know someone who can use quickstatements if helpful).


--John Cummings (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a datatype now, but there is no support for KML yet. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
there is the property geoshape (P3896) - it links to a Commons file so you have to upload there and as Sjoerd mentions that doesn't support KML right now, but there are other map formats you can use. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Sjoerddebruin (talkcontribslogs) and ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs), the current process is beyond me, I'll wait for it to be more developed. --John Cummings (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
See also KML file (P3096). --Marsupium (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration with VIAF.Edit

Hoi, I noticed that Wikidata are included by librarians. I blogged about this. The consequence is that we should actively seek their collaboration. VIAF is like Wikidata actively maintained and both their and our content have its problems. Collaboration is a reason to rejoice because it means that we have shared objectives. All of us want people to read, not just Wikipedia (any Wikipedia) but also books and periodicals. Libraries and librarians have an enviable track record. Together we will achieve what we will not achieve alone. GerardM (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee electionsEdit

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

BREAKING CHANGE: sitelink encoding changing in RDF export/WDQSEdit

In RDF exports of Wikidata and in Wikidata Query Service, sitelinks were always encoded by url-encoding the sitelink text - i.e. link to "Category:Stuffed animals" were encoded as /wiki/Category%3AStuffed%20animals.

While this encoding produces a working link, after some time we've arrived to a conclusion that such encoding is very inconvenient, due to mismatch with how titles are encoded in Mediawiki, and this mismatch makes it harder to look up the links. See more in phab:T131960.

We have decided to change the encoding, so that the encoding of the sitelink above would be /wiki/Category:Stuffed_animals. The encoding now should match how titles are encoded in Mediawiki codebase (non-ASCII characters that Mediawiki encodes will still be encoded as before).

Implementation of this change will require database reload, and during that time there might be inconsistent results returned for some time (some entities may have new sitelink encoding and some the old one). I apologize in advance for any inconvenience caused by that. I will announce additionally when the switch is process has started and when it is complete.

--Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Compare itemsEdit

Hello. Is there a way to compare two items? I want to check what properties they have in common, what are their differences etc. Xaris333 (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Special:ComparePages Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Join my Reddit AMA about Wikipedia and ethical, transparent AIEdit

Hey folks, I'm doing an experimental Reddit AMA ("ask me anything") in r/IAmA on June 1st at 21:00 UTC. For those who don't know, I create artificial intelligences that support the volunteers who edit Wikidata. I've been studying the ways that crowds of volunteers build massive, high quality information resources like Wikipedia and Wikidata for over ten years.

This AMA will allow me to channel that for new audiences in a different (for us) way. I'll be talking about the work I'm doing with the ethics and transparency of the design of AI, how we think about artificial intelligence on Wikimedia projects, and ways we’re working to counteract vandalism. I'd love to have your feedback, comments, and questions—preferably when the AMA begins, but also through the ORES talkpage on MediaWiki.

If you'd like to know more about what I do, see my WMF staff user page, this Wired piece about my work or my one of my more impactful research papers, "The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s reaction to popularity is causing its decline". --EpochFail (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Can somebody delete all descriptions or add new ones for the tv series? The film is now under Q3187345. Queryzo (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Any widget to convert an instance statement to a subclass statement?Edit

Very often I find items that are stated as an instance of X, whereas they are actually a subclass of X.

Fixing such mistakes takes quite some time. Is there a browser widget that makes the switch with a single click? That would be wonderful :-)

If not, is there a collection of such Wikidata browser widgets? (so that I can steal the code)

Thanks! Syced (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

"point in time" vs. last update (P585)Edit

Hey folks, currently the property point in time (P585) is used for two purposes at the same time: On the one hand, it defines a point of time when an event took place (see the examples on the talk page, e.g. United States presidential election, 2012 (Q4226) → November 6, 2012), and on the other hand it is used as a qualifier to determine when a statement was true or last updated (for example the population of a city or the number of goals a soccer player has scored – these data are subject to frequent changes, so it is important to state when the given information was true or last updated respectively). The property is used more and more for the first purpose, while its original intention was the latter (see property proposal: here). Especially for finding an appropriate label for the property in the various languages, the specific use of the property is important. In English, for example, the original label was as of to determine when a statement was true or last updated, but with the usage to determine when an event took place, it was changed to point in time. The same issue we're facing for the German label and probably for all other languages also. Therefore, I think it might be reasonable to create another property to determine when a statement was true (e.g. as of, last update or something like this) and so use two properties for those two purposes. As this would be quite a big change (the property is used extremely often), I thought a prior discussion here would be reasonable before requesting the creation of the new property. What do you think? Yellowcard (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There are really three cases: "as of" implies that the truth of a statement was checked at a particular time. "Date of an arbitrary event" could be applied to most anything that doesn't have a devoted property for that kind of event, such as date of birth (P569). And the range of time when a status is known to be true can (in the sense of it became true on a known date, and became false on a later known date) could be indicated with start time (P580) and end time (P582).
If we're going to fix some of this stuff, it might be worth pointing out that the example cited by Yellowcard, "United States presidential election, 2012 (Q4226) → November 6, 2012)" is false because Wikidata dates are interpreted as w:Universal Time (UT) and, in UT, the polls were open in the USA on November 5, 6, and 7. This problem could be solved by implementing my proposal on Mediawiki, that is, interpret Wikidata dates as local time rather than UT. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Much that would require "as of" is covered by retrieved (P813). - Brya (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if "as of" is at all translatable into Swedish. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
When I see a case like this, I think it might be worth to have a more formal process for changing the label and description of a property. ChristianKl (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Common labels and descriptionsEdit

One of them major problems of this project, IMO, is the flooding of watchlist and recent changes page, and also item history cluttering. Premises and conditions for this exists, since there are many large series of items which could have an identical label in multiple languages (e.g. almost all those based on Latin script) for each item, and also common descriptions or with a similar pattern. There were granted many flood flags and bot flags for adding by one label/description per language for such series of items, but why not to add a big part of them at once, in one or two edits, using bots? For example, take a look at this item history - it's very well visible how in more than ten edits several users and bots have added few labels/descriptions for individual languages one by one; there are many other better examples with more cluttered histories spread on several pages and hudreds of entries in item history, but this is a fresh one with 5 such edits made yesterday (and it's a part of a series, multiply these edits to several thousands/tens of thousands which are in the same situation):

Some 65 languages based on Latin script in Wikidata almost always share the same label per item for some proper names: human names and settlement names originating from countries with official languages based on Latin script, etc. The descriptions for each language are either common for a series of items, or have common parts and follow a common pattern with an additional variable (e.g. a higher administrative territorial unit for populated places). Thus bots can add in a single edit even by 200 descriptions, and by 60+ labels (though is acceptable in another edit), instead of having several tens or hundreds of entries in item histories to achieve this. This practice is already applied to items of disambiguations/templates/categories, but it should be extended for other major series of items, for example humans: sportspeople (especially footballers, most commons), politicians; taxons; populated places; films, books, singles and other albums, etc, etc. For descriptions of the most large series of items, we could create and maintain several 'dictionaries' of terms, like those from MediaWiki:Gadget-autoEdit.js, which should be used by bot operators when are mass-editing items. To achieve a better and faster translation of the list of descriptions, there can be used the Mass Message delivery system to ask for help on local Village Pumps. The available mass editing tools on Labs should show a message which says that editing a label/description for a single language in thousands of items it's not recommended and this should be discussed in a proper place to add this task to the next bot run. Thus, I think there should be a Wikidata Etiquette regarding mass-editing large series of items (thousands/tens of thousands) both for humans and bots. --XXN, 11:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the core problem is that when I browse an item history or the watchlist I don't care about it's 'bug' or 'jv' label and the optimal solution would be to filter it out.
As far as there's a Project Chat for languages besides English, the main language of the corresponding project chat isn't English and as a result, I don't think it's a good idea to do mass message delivery in English to that Project Chat. WikiProjects for the respective languages would be a more appropriate way but currently we don't have a lot of them for individual languages. Having a WikiProject to ping when a speaker of a particular language is needed would also be valuable. ChristianKl (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth to create a new property that indicates whether instances of a given class can be expected to have the same name in all languages that share the Latin alphabet. ChristianKl (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I created as a proposal to store the information about which item's labels can simply be copied. ChristianKl (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree, adding a lot of labels is not a problem (but maybe it may and should be optimized), lack of filtering on page history is. Yarl 💭  22:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Item by title" from sidebarEdit

This was already suggested two years ago, but was recently discussed again during the Wikidata Documentation sprint during the Wikimedia Hackathon 2017 in Vienna. The feature isn't being used a lot anymore. It will still be listed on Special:SpecialPages, but I don't think it deserves such a prominent position in our sidebar.

Opinions here please. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, having only one search bar is provides better UX.
In most modern websites a decision like this would be supported by running split tests. Is there a good reason why we can't run a split test for this?
There's also other information where I'm unsure about it's use:
  • Print/export: Create a book/Download as PDF/Printable version
  • Random item - I don't think that browsing random Wikidata items is useful for our users in the same way that browsing random Wikipedia pages can be fun. ChristianKl (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Global overview of the strategy discussionEdit

Some of the strategy-related posts look like they were ignored. Maybe most users think there's no need to react here? Maybe I generate sentences or look like a mass message bot? :) Everything is clear to everybody? I doubt all of that, but, well. Anyway, I hope someone will notice and appreciate my messages:

  • There's a global overview of discussions that took place in the first week of the Cycle 2. There's a lot of feedback, maybe someone somewhere posted something related to your thoughts, raised a similar issue, maybe even had the same idea. Check that out!
  • In the first week of the Cycle 2, we've gathered 35k bytes of comments. For comparison, in the Cycle 1, which lasted a month, 50k were saved. That's a progress, but I'm still asking for more. More opinions, more concerns, more questions, any type of feedback. And remember, no such thing as a stupid question :)

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF):The way your summary works, it's hard to go to the actual post that's behind a summary headline. Can you change your process in a way that the actual posts are linked? ChristianKl (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

QUDT unit ID (P2968) for prefixes and systems of units?Edit

The only indicated domain for this property is unit of measurement (Q47574), but the QUDT Unit Ontology also has prefixes like giga- (Giga) and systems of units like SI (SystemOfUnits_SI). Is it OK to use this property for that? -- IvanP (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Create multiple items using quick statementsEdit

hello, I'm trying to create a list of new items using the QuickStatements tool. According to the instruction, I need to type the word "CREATE" in the first line and then statements and labels might be added easily after the word "LAST". Here an example that should have created two new items and added some information to them which unfortunately did not:
LAST Lar "نقطة الغليان" Dar "كتاب" P52 Q968721 P31 Q571 P364 Q13955
LAST Lar "الله والإنسان" Dar "كتاب" P54 Q968721 P31 Q571 P364 Q13955

Am I missing something? If my way was right but the tool is inactive in the moment, is there another possibility to create multiple items (for example from an excel list) and adding necessary statements and labels/description to them? Thanks in advance.. --Sky xe (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sky xe: The old QuickStatements it's not working at the moment, try the new one - --XXN, 23:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fill in empty fieldsEdit

I have this query:

Is there a way I can fill in missing fields using an interface like this? I think in SQL Server and MySQL you can type in new values in a result set table. Thanks. SharkD (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: For SPARQL help, see Wikidata:Request a query. Yarl 💭  22:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
My question is not about SPARQL queries, but rather about whether I can type values into a result set table like in SQL Server and MySQL Workbench. SharkD (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)