Open main menu

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2019/10.

Contents

Wiki data before 2016Edit

I am trying to load the monthly page-views data between 2002-2019 with the following query:

https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/metrics/unique-devices/en.wikipedia.org/all-sites/monthly/20020101/20190801

Unfortunately, I am getting the data only between 2016-2019. Is there any way to get the earlier data? I understand that the earlier metrics can be different. As much uniformity in the data as available -- will work for me. Any help will be much appreciated.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.64.31.185 (talk • contribs) at 01:44, 1 October 2019‎ (UTC).

Company itemsEdit

user:Freebald has, since June, created thousands (over 28K, it seems) of items about apparently non-notable companies, with no independent identifiers, no links from other items, and no citations. Prior to realising this, I just sent a few (Q66809281, ‎Q66809316, ‎Q66809326, ‎Q66809328), which serve as examples, to requests for deletion, on the grounds of non-notability. Having then noticed the scale of the issue, I visited their talk page, where I see that User:ArthurPSmith asked them on 4 September to give an explanation; none has been forthcoming. Do we want these items? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we want those items in their current form:
  • Due to the systematic lack of sources, other users have no chance to work with them, or to verify the information provided. This also means that those items are not going to be updated no matter what is going to happen with those companies.
  • We do not know where the extensive dataset comes from. Might be a source with an incompatible license…?!
  • In principle, I do not like situations where a new user shows up, dumps a larger amount of content with questionable provenance while ignoring all our standards, and then disappears again. This seriously undermines our position about entity notability, which is of outstanding importance for this project.
Yes, I think we should delete the items, but I would love to see what others think. Btw., we are talking about ~17400 newly created items in total; the user has also made ~11000 edits to existing items (not sure whether created by themselves earlier). —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Some more thoughts, without changing my position:
  • It appears that all the imported data was taken from crunchbase.com, although Crunchbase organization ID (P2088) has not been added to any of the items by User:Freebald. Crunchbase does not permit this to my understanding (read their ToS…).
  • Some of the data seems to be wrong due to the way how the mapping was done. Companies which are headquartered in Phoenix (Q16556) according to Crunchbase use Firefox (Q698) as value for headquarters location (P159). There are some other similar mistakes.
  • There are very few sitelinks meanwhile connected to the ~17400 items, very few items have backlinks meanwhile, and very few items have received follow-up edits by other users (order of 10 each). This should be respected in case we delete the items.
MisterSynergy (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that merely being in Crunchbase confers notability. I've added a statement to the ID property to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree, I do not think so as well. I wanted to highlight that this seems to be an import which is legally problematic due to the lack of a compatible licence on the (suspected) data source side. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Andy/MisterSynergy .. --- Jura 09:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think copyright is an issue in this case. The data themselves seems to be pure facts that are not copyrightable (i.e. can not be stated in alternative ways; we don't honor database right here). Although I don't support the import; Crunchbase is a user-generated database and anyone can add entries to it (even for advertising purpose).--GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I was anticipating this user would continue to edit, as they appeared to have done some useful edits to existing items. However, the lack of response or any action at all for over a month suggests this was some sort of one-time effort that will not be followed up on. We might give it a little more time, but I'm inclined to just recommend deleting all the items created by this user that have not received any edits or links from anybody else in this time. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we need a separate deletion disucsion, or can an admin act on the above? And can someone make a list of the relevant items that have been edited by others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I will be mass-deleting all their creations now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it is more complicated, their creations are not in recent changes. Could somebody easily make a list?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
quarry:query/39430 (select one of the download options). Mind that it *does* include items with sitelinks and/or backlinks, or with edits by other users. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The editgroups tool can also be used to batch-delete the items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, this is very useful. They created 17K items, and, I am afraid, we just need to delete all of them, even if a small percentage have been edited by others or have backlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me just try to figure out for some minutes the ones with backlinks and sitelinks. Should be possible with the query service… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid in the meanwhile I already deleted several hundred items (and my sampling did not give any sitelinks or backlinks), but I aborted the deletion right now. I will see tomorrow what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sitelinks:

Backlinks:

Redirects:

As this is really not much, I suggest to delete all items and to restore the ones with backlinks or sitelinks in this list. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe I deleted whatever could have been automatically deleted, the earliest 2000 items still need to be deleted manually. I will now restore whatever needs to be restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge?Edit

Private First Class (Q19758545) and private first class (Q2352637)? Or at least they need to be better differentiated, we have to decide if the title is equivalent across different country's military or of the Asian version just has a poor English translation. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The only sitelink specifically mentioning it as Chinese rank is the ruwiki. Before merging here it has to be redirected anyway. --SCIdude (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if @Yevrowl, MaksOttoVonStirlitz, Михеев Денис, Raye Penber, Nicolay Sidorov:@Angra Mainyu, АлександрВв: can explain differents or not, or can nominate merging or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


Could someone please copmlete the merge of Q19392492 and Q229583? Thank you. --84.209.171.246 00:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could merge Q12002575 and Q17521285. Fraternal thanks --193.157.183.3 09:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Example of parliamentary group of the partyEdit

Hello. A new property constraint was added to parliamentary group (P4100). I don't disaggre. The problem is that I have used some months ago the property for many items using the party item and not the parliamentary group of the party. I just need a good example of a parliamentary group of the party (for national parliament) to create new items and correct the statements. Xaris333 (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaris333: I've updated the constraint, as this was giving an error on a lot of existing items. It should be okay to use a political party rather than a larger group as the value here, if that is what seems appropriate for your context. (It will vary a bit by country) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Thanks. But, what is better for wikidata? To add the party item or the parliamentary group of the party item? I am interesting about Cyprus parliament House of Representatives (Q1112381). Xaris333 (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: As far as I can see from English WP - and I might be wrong! - Cyprus doesn't really have political groups (organised groups of parties), so I think it would make most sense here to use the parties, eg Progressive Party of Working People (Q212158) or Democratic Rally (Q644973).
An example of a country that does is Chile, where a lot of small parties are grouped together into larger groups in Parliament, and so we have Luciano Cruz-Coke (Q6696802) using parliamentary group (P4100):Chile Vamos (Q20859150), rather than Political Evolution (Q16565533), his actual party. See w:Chamber of Deputies of Chile for an example of how this breaks down. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. I hope that we will not have problems in the future. Xaris333 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Can a bot add in siblings?Edit

If someone has 11 children with entries in Wikidata someone has to add in the 10 siblings to each record of each child for 100 entries. This could better be handled by a bot that will give fewer errors. Does one exist already?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what the point would be. Queries would be better off just checking the parent-child data directly. --Yair rand (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think most people would be coming to Wikidata through Google or Siri or Alexa, and not running a query using SPARQL. Especially for entries not in English Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Poulpy (talkcontribslogs) used to run such a bot, I believe. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
A bot would be best, but in the short term you can use User:Matěj Suchánek/moveClaim.js to copy claims from one item to another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
If no one has the script available, I would be willing to create and run it, if a request is made via WD:RBOT. I believe there will be more family relations that can be handled the same way (sibblings, parents/children, grand-parents, uncles, etc). I am working out something similar with ranges (follows (P155) and followed by (P156)) in a serie/chain. Edoderoo (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
A bot or single-click user-operated tool would be absolutely wonderful for tasks like this, especially for items like parent-child relationships or spouse (P26) or any statement with symmetric constraint (Q21510862): it would be great if the nagging notice of "Joe Blow should also have the symmetric statement spouse Jane Doe" had a button saying "click here to perform this". This would make huge gains in improving the completeness of data entered largely by humans freely volunteering their time. If I can perform an action in one click instead of 3 or 4, Wikidata is all the better. -Animalparty (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Upload datasetEdit

Hi!,

I am writing again, because I didn't get any answer about: How can I upload a dataset of 7 million of triples to Wikidata?.

JLuzc (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@JLuzc: You most certainly got at least one answer the last time you asked, as well as some questions and concerns. @GZWDer, ChristianKl, Kpjas, Iwan.Aucamp: as those who opined before. Mahir256 (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the answers until now, because I didn't get any notice to my inbox. @GZWDer, ChristianKl, Kpjas, Iwan.Aucamp:. I know Wikidata isn't a triples database, but I think it will very helpful to have relations between two existing items. I have relations like place of birth, member of sport team, etc. I do not have specific references of each fact, I extracted this information from Wikipedia.

The dataset consists on about 8 million triples with 70% precision (70% probability of being correct), that means they need to be validated, and I don't understand: how can use a bot for that; I have to create a new one?, there is some information about how to connect the bot to Wikidata?.

  • @JLuzc: If you extracted information from Wikipedia, you should know which Wikipedia page is contains the information and link via Wikimedia import URL (P4656). If your program considers particular sentences to be responsible for the information using quote (P1683) in the sourcing would make it much easier to verify claims. 70% precision seems to me to be to low even when there's human validation. 90% or 95% would feel more appropriate to me with human validation.
In any cases for items that need human validation of this kind we currently only have the primary sources tool and I don't know why that's broken at the moment @Hjfocs:x is there a chance we get the tool working again?
In the absence of human validation, how many hits do you get if you filter for 99.9% precision? ChristianKl❫ 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Thank you so much!. I don't know how the different tools, for uploading data to Wikidata work, then I am being very honest at saying that my data don't have 100% precision, I don't want to give to much work to Wikidata community, I want to help the community and provide more information to the knowledge base. As you explain, it will more useful to filter data and get a better precision (>90%) first. As you suggest, Should I create a bot to add the references for each fact?. (Could you suggest me a bot that does something similar?) JLuzc (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be worth setting up the model in a way that it outputs for every triple: Confidence, the paragraph or sentence that's the source, link to the Wikipedia page from which the content is taken. Then it would be good if you can tell us for cutoffs of 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.5% and 99.9% how many claims your model makes.
Then we will have to see whether or not someone can get the Primary Sources tool back working. What kind of cutoff is acceptable will depend on that question. The alternative to the primary sources tool is to make a bot request on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Bot_requests . In that bot request discussion we might discuss what kind of cutoff is acceptable for a bot that directly enters the claims. ChristianKl❫ 07:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @ChristianKl:, I will write you again when I have the triples with that confidence and references. JLuzc (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's turn this around a little. @JLuzc: you're proposing to add 2.1 million WRONG triples to wikidata. Why would you want to do that? Please don't. I'm sure your tool is very clever, but it clearly is not clever enough to be used in production unless, as ChristianKl alludes, you can constrain the set of triples uploaded to those for which you have a very very high 90s % confidence. Your having a huge dataset is not a sufficient cause for it to be added to wikidata if it introduces such widespread misinformation. It is unethical in the extreme to expect humans to correct 2.1 million mistakes made by your code. It would be arrogant in the extreme to inflict this dataset on wikidata. I hope that is all clear. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you @Tagishsimon:, I am writing in this talk page for getting help and some knowledge about how upload the data, and how the validation is made. I will improve the precision of data and try to upload it with the tools that have been mentioned here. JLuzc (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not understand the concept of a triple, can I see a better example than the Douglas Adams one, or that one explained in step by step of what makes it a triple. --RAN (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
A triple is a subject-predicate-object set, such as wd:Q42 wdt:P31 wd:Q5, or wd:Q42 wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097. Is explained somewhat here - w:en:Semantic triple. One way & another, wikidata is tripes all the way down: Data model --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Given that Wikidata statemnts have elements like rank as well, I think you are still reducing the complexity when you think about Wikidata statements as being triples in the general case. ChristianKl❫ 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The rank element ... all elements - qualifiers, references, normalised values &c ... are triples. I'm not clear what point you're making, ChristianKl. The complexity, or elegance, is in the hierarchy of triples which come together to describe items and their properties, and the data model is the key to understanding the structure of the triple hierachy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear friens, I have a similar situation with a private instance of wikidata, the case is that we want to upload 1,5 millions of dataset, that is moreless 30 millions of triples. We are loading at a rate of 1 data set per second, but that is too slow, because we would be talking about 46 working days to load this dataset. We just created abot, and modified the average time per edit, however nothing changes, and the processing time holds. I thank you in advance any recommendation. Luis.ramos.pst.ag

Should ICD-9-CM (P1692) ICPC 2 ID (P667) and Patientplus ID (P1461) not be instance of (P31) Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637)Edit

I think this is what is needed for these to go under Identifiers section on Item pages. If they should be instance of (P31) Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637) - why not? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (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) Framawiki (please notify !) (talk) BrillLyle (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Sic19 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Wikidelo (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC) PKM (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Eihel (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC) NAH Iwan.Aucamp

  Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control

Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Gstupp
Geoide
Sintakso
علاء
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Adert
CFCF
Jtuom
Lucas559
Drchriswilliams
Okkn
CAPTAIN RAJU
LeadSongDog
Ozzie10aaaa
Sami Mlouhi
Marsupium
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
ShelleyAdams
Fractaler
Seppi333
Shani Evenstein
Csisc
linuxo
Arash
Morgankevinj
Anandhisuresh
TiagoLubiana
ZI Jony
Viveknalgirkar
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

@Iwan.Aucamp: Thanks for the suggestion. I've edited the pages for all three properties accordingly. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: Thanks, for some reason they still show under Statements and not Identifiers here premenstrual syndrome (Q220193), is it due to caching or is there something else that mark properties as identifiers? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
They show up there because they are string properties and not external-id properties. ChristianKl❫ 10:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: should they be changed to external-id properties? And if so how do I request it? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Identifier_migration might get you started on previous discussions. ChristianKl❫ 09:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we have help pages that tell people MediaWiki basics like how to sign talk page posts?Edit

 
I'm looking for something more Wikidata-centric than this

We have lots of help pages under WD:Help but none of them seem to explain some of the Wikidata basics that we owe to MediaWiki. They might be taken for granted for people who come here from other Wikimedia sites, but that's only a subset of those who dip their toes into Wikidata waters. So I am wondering whether we have something simple to point people to in order to explain, for instance, how to sign posts on pages like this or on talk page. Thanks for any pointers, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have such help pages. More than MediaWiki basics, we have help pages about the particular use of Wikidata, which uses the Wikibase software (along with MediaWiki). And because this is a storage wiki, most of users come from other Wikimedia projects, therefore it's logic to assume that they already know the understanding of wikis. However, implementing the kind of help pages you point could benefit some users as well. Esteban16 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is more then just a storage Wiki for Wikipedia. It has also audiences like GLAM that might not be used to Wiki editing. It would be interesting to have actual numbers about what percentage of Wikidata users has no edits in other projects. ChristianKl❫ 10:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Revolutionary item!Edit

I have created Q70209157. Please help me to fill that! --2001:B07:6442:8903:70A1:8A4B:6749:FCB6 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

How about adding your definition of long in the description so we have an objective criterium. --RAN (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Added! --151.49.38.152 18:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Now deleted per WD:N, 1.1. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Could be useful... you make me sad... --151.49.38.152 19:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I created a proposal to allow items for special pages like this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Notability#Allow_items_for_special_pages_with_more_then_one_sitelink . You might read throught the existing discussion and create a new RfC for solving the migration of leftover string properties. ChristianKl❫ 09:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Whitelisting a regex locallyEdit

Here's the discussion in question. Does anyone know how to whitelist the regex on Wikidata locally? --Trade (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Building that has changed usesEdit

Are there any good models of how to deal with a building that has changed uses over time? This came up with Mercy Friary (Q47766776)/Museum of Fine Arts of Seville (Q2163496). I'm not sure I found a satisfactory solution -- it seems here like what I've done associates the physical building with Mercy Friary (Q47766776) and there is no item for the religious community that happened to reside in the building (whereas the museum that happens to reside in the building gets its own item). Is there a better way to do this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So I give up: I've just looked at three prominent buildings that have this situation and the way it's handled ranges from poor (General Post Office (Q5532118)/Hotel Monaco (Q5911750), Romanian Peasant Museum (Q623662)) to "at least you might be able to work it out" (Dallas County Courthouse (Q5211300)). Anyone got any good examples? - Jmabel (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Would Musée d'Orsay (Q23402) qualify? It uses P138 to refer to Gare d'Orsay (Q2698691).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Louvre Palace (Q1075988)? Ayack (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to remember that a building is a building and a museum is not just a building but also an institution. That's why there should always be 2 items : one for the building itself and a second for the institution in the building. This is what I did for some museum like Les Champs Libres (Q3231356) (in this case, there was no choice as there is 3 institutions in the building). With that in mind Museum of Fine Arts of Seville (Q2163496) seems wrong as it mix things related to the building and things related to the instutition. As some property are used in both context with different meaning (for instance inception (P571) means construction date for a building and establishment/foundation date for an institution), it's even more importante to make a clear distinction. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, I was about to bring up the same question about a school building. I made two entries for the organizations housed there and treated it as a succession, using "replaces" and "replaced by" when I could not find a standardized example. --RAN (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
See also hospital (Q16917) and hospital (Q180370) where we have the organization that is housed in a building. The hospital organization can be housed in multiple buildings over their century long existence. --RAN (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia (Q12506) is also a good/bad example of handling this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Global Network InitiativeEdit

None of the items listed as "part of" Global Network Initiative (Q5570513) (including Facebook and Google) are really part of it. How should the relationship be modelled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a problem with a large amount of "part of" relations. In this case, I suggest to use inverse member of (P463): Global Network Initiative (Q5570513) claims in the member items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

RedirectEdit

This is what I found:

Frank Philipp Schlößmann (Frank Philipp Schlößmann (Q1443964)) / German designer of stage and costumes / 12 statements, 2 sitelinks - 11:13, 10 October 2019

Frank Philipp Schlössmann (Q53112459) / 6 statements, 0 sitelinks - 11:13, 10 October 2019

and believe the latter should be just a redirect, or otherwise pointing out that it is the same person. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)--

@Gerda Arendt: if you are sure it's the same person, then you should do the merge yourself. I've put the explanation template on your talk page. Cdlt VIGNERON (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

item change log filteringEdit

Hi, this may be a newbie question but I didn't find the answer myself. I want to filter the change log for an item to list changes only to a particular statement. E.g. for Q43 I want to get an overview of changes to demonym (P1549) through item history. This could be known as a blame tool, but searching for such thing on WD didn't get me any useful hit.

The ordinary history view can filter for tag, but that isn't very useful in this case. It would be more useful to filter based on change summary, I think. I could also see a use to filter out label/description changes through the same means. Is there a tool for it, or a way to query change log?

I had a look through Wikidata:Tools with no luck. If you have the answer, I'd be happy for a Ping! Jagulin (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please answer here, I'm interested too! --SCIdude (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Ricordisamoa/WikidataTrust.js. This is not a scalable tool (for Q34 about 2.6GB need to be downloaded).--GZWDer (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case maybe this should be a suggestion for improvements to the history view. Anyone know of such already, in Phabricator? I also think it should be possible to do a query for the change log. I will have a look at the API. Jagulin (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

participant (Q56512863) on music eventEdit

It is good to add participant (Q56512863) in musical event items, like Lucilla Minervini (Q41769115) on Zecchino d'Oro 2002 (Q4024054)? --2001:B07:6442:8903:70A1:8A4B:6749:FCB6 13:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It is good to add participant (Q56512863) in musical event items, like Lucilla Minervini (Q41769115) on Zecchino d'Oro 2002 (Q4024054)? --151.49.38.152 12:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

participant (Q56512863) is an item and not a property that you could add in the way you talk about. ChristianKl❫ 13:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I merged the two similar questions. Maybe performer (P175) fit your purpose, it can be applied to "event" and take "artist". Jagulin (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing the IPs talk about participant (P710) which can indeed be use for these items. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Location of an image of a person from the web NOT stored at Wiki CommonsEdit

I thought at one time we had a property that stored the url of an image from the web of a person or thing that is NOT from Wikimedia Commons. Google displays fair use images in Knowledge Graph (KG). Secondly, if we had a property storing the url of an image, is there anything legally that prevents us from displaying it under the doctrine of fair use. English Wikipedia allows one fairuse image per entry, except for living people, at one point they were all purged for living people. We could disable the "save as" function, so it cannot be downloaded directly from here. Twice this week I came across Google (KG) displaying the wrong image of a person. On some Google (KG) boxes I get an edit button where I can suggest a change, other searches, I get no edit box. Does anyone else here get the edit function, or is it a trusted user function some people get, like I had at Google Maps? --RAN (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The commitment that all data here is CC-0 would presumably preclude including images on a fair-use basis. Remember also that fair use is a concept specific to U.S. copyright law. - Jmabel (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Exactly. There data here is CC-0; That doesn't stop us linking to all manner of legitmately available copyright material, including numerous commercial websites, encyclopedias, directories, etc. So there is no objection to linking to indicate where a in-copyright or even an agency image may be found. What use downstream reusers choose to make of such links is for them to assess, based on the copyright laws local and applicable to their situation. Most EU countries, for example, include an exception allowing copying for personal private research; as well aw further exceptions going beyond that which may be applicable in particular contexts. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jheald: Linking from Wikidata is fine, but his question appears to be about displaying the image. "… is there anything legally that prevents us from displaying it under the doctrine of fair use … Twice this week I came across Google (KG) displaying the wrong image of a person." - Jmabel (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
        • If this was going to be done, it would probably be advisable to make a copy of the image in Wikidata, as is done on Wikipedia, to avoid dead links and since a lot of sites won't permit directly embedding an image. However, a proposal to allow fair use material, at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Non-free content, doesn't seem to have generated a lot of enthusiasm. Ghouston (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I suspect you're thinking of Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) and non-free artwork image URL (P6500). I'm not convinced that they are a good idea, though - they seem like maintenance burdens (e.g., when URLs change) that would be time better spent maintaining images on commons... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

"Duplicate references" has not been working for 14 daysEdit

Does anyone have any idea when the problem will be solved? HarryNº2 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There’s a bug opened in Phabricator, but as far as I can tell there’s no ETA and no one committed to fixing it, alas. Really crippling my work. - PKM (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ·
Thank you for your answer. At the moment I do not feel like creating new articles or adding missing documents. I can only hope that someone will quickly solve the problem. HarryNº2 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@HarryNº2%: Fixed! - PKM (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Semantic Scholar author IDEdit

In the last iterations of multiple items with the same ORCID identifier, i find that many errors co-occur with errors in the Semantic Scholar author ID. I do remove these identifiers but what prevents re-occurence? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske:.--GZWDer (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you remove the identifiers? The optimal solution is often to merge the items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I remove them because I am not getting side lined from fixing ORCID problems. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Then just leave things alone. Otherwise, you are damaging Wikidata; and making it harder for other people to improve it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple possible cases here. In some cases merging is the way to go. In others where an identifier is wrong, the solution is to deprecate the wrong identifier. If you don't deprecate will likely be refilled sooner or later by a bot. ChristianKl❫ 07:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

unknown values for people who have long-since diedEdit

Today, via a post on Reddit, it was highlighted that the google knowledge graph results for the ancient Roman senator Lucius Pinarius (Q382127) declares him to be 2085 years old. [Google result: https://www.google.com/search?q=lucius+pinarius]. Obviously, this is the result of a Google querying Wikidata, finding a birth-date and no death-date, and making an age-calculation up to the present day. The way for Google to solve this would be to add a bit of logic that ignores the age calculation if there is no death date listed (ping: Denny).

But the way for Wikidata to solve this, and potentially many other cases like it... I suggest to:
Add an "date of death (P570) -> Unknown Value" statement to all the instance of (P31) -> human (Q5) who HAVE a date of birth (P569) before 1900 AND have no date of death (P570) statement.
[Note: I have already done this for Lucius Pinarius (Q382127) so the Google graph will update eventually]

This would apply to:

Is this a good idea?

[Credit to Fuzheado for making the sparql query!] Thanks, Wittylama (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No. Why not add actual values instead? 11:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)--- Jura
If the actual death-date were known, then yes of course that should be added. But in the absence of the specific information for each person we could at least say what we know: that they ARE dead - we just don't know when. Wittylama (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's also obvious that they have a place of birth, a place of death, a mother, a father, a place of burial we might not have included yet. Would you check sitelinks and listed references first? --- Jura 11:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose we could be adding 'unknown value' to those other things too - technically its true, as you say. But I agree with your implication - that doing that would be overkill. My thinking is that because we have actively said there's a start-date (birth), we should make some acknowledgement of the end-date (death) - for this MOST human of facts [as they say, "...death and taxes!"].
The second part of your question - what kind of checks could/should be done before mass-adding such a statement - gets to the heart of the matter. I certainly wouldn't be manually researching each person! And this is why I broke the research into those time-groupings, because we might feel differently about adding this statement for people born 2000 BCE as opposed to born in 1899. I suspect adding the 'unknown value' statement could also serve as a case of m:Cunningham's law - by overtly saying we don't know, might encourage some people to find and include a referenced fact in some cases. Wittylama (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That really is true for many other things as well. Currently, in most approaches, we stop looking for it once someone determined it's unknown. So we just end up closing the door for incremental additions. --- Jura 11:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the GUI rendered this as some value (the meaning it is given in the underlying software, and the usual meaning of the blank node we use to represent it in RDF), rather than unknown. This special value does not necessarily mean that it is known that nobody anywhere knows the value. It means that we know that the statement has some value, but that (for some reason) we are not currently able to state it. That can include there not presently being an item for the value, hence common idioms such as spouse (P26) = some value, stated as (P1932) = "Elizabeth Smith". It would be helpful if the software did not represent "some value" as unknown, because this can often be misleading as to what we really mean by "some value". Jheald (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Re. "unknown value" it has always been somewhat unclear how to use it:

  • Only if available sources concordantly and explicitly state that this information is generally not known to the public?
  • Or if you as a Wikidata editor have done some thorough research and did not find any public source which reports this information?

IMO, "date of death: unknown value" is still better than no "date of death" statement at all, as the latter somehow implies that the person might still be living. However, I would recommend not to batch-add such statements to items, as the "thorough research" for possibly available information cannot be automated. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

In the past, I used century precision for a date of death around the date of birth sometimes. There is pros and cons to do stuffs like that, it may help some queries for example (if, say, we want to sort accourding to a date of birth/death, it’s better to use a fuzzy date than « unknown value » in some cases.)author  TomT0m / talk page 12:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If the associated Wikipedia articles mention it as "unknown", I think adding a century precision DOD is a good idea. However, we currently do lack a process to attempt to add more precision to dates that don't have day-precision. --- Jura 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If this were a real knowledge database the human item would include a max age, and the program would infer the incorrectness of its 2000 year age deduction from it. --SCIdude (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support date_of_death=unknown_value for people over 110 years old. We have a list of supercentenarians, which is everyone over 110 years old. We can flag the known supercentenarians so that they do not get date_of_death=unknown_value. We can find most dates of death for USA people who died between 1900 and 2015 at Familysearch which has most state death records. It also has federal death records from about 1970 to the present. --RAN (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I used 120 years on Robert Bruce Douglas (Q56604483), with some qualifiers. Ghouston (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Date of birth or date of death should never ever be “unknown”. It should be some date with low precision. Multichill (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, the same would be true for the place of birth, because setting it to planet earth is always true. At the end it boils down to the question to which granularity something is still "unknown". For example, if somebody was born in Germany, the exact place of birth might still be "unknown". Going even further, for somebody born in Berlin, the exact district can be "unknown". Steak (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If we do this - I'm not sure it's a good idea - I think we need to make sure we can distinguish between "actually unknown value" and "we simply don't have one yet, so we've put unknown in for the time being". Perhaps a sourcing-circumstances qualifier to say "automatically applied due to a long-ago birthdate", or something? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I mentioned this proposal to Multichill, and his point was allied to your concern Andrew... he noted that a birth/death date should never ever be “unknown". Rather, it should be a date with low precision. That is, to avoid the question you raise (and also Jura1's earlier point about the potential for shutting down incremental improvements), it's better to give the most accurate knowable precision rather than to declare that it's not known. If you think that's a good point - and it sounds quite accurate to me - the question is, can that be turned into a bot editing task that does something like adding a death date of "no later than" [120 years after birthdate]? Wittylama (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes and no. I think that decade or century inaccurate-precision dates are okay, but millennium-precision ones (barring deep historical dates like early Egyptian figures!) should probably be avoided - they will just confuse queries that aren't set up for complex date filtering.
      • For "no earlier than"/"no later than" dates, I presume these would be "unknown" w/ a latest date (P1326) or similar qualifier? If so, I think that would work okay. But we would still need some kind of "automatically inferred from..." sourcing qualifier. Otherwise it will become an incredible mess in the future, as we are left with trying to figure out if it's automatically calculated, or if some researcher actually went off and determined it was no later than that date for (some other reason). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if there's any real difference between "actually unknown value" and "we simply don't have one yet, so we've put unknown in for the time being". What does "actually unknown value" mean? There's always the possibility that the information is recorded somewhere, on a piece of paper in an archive or a buried stone tablet. I'm also not sure how you use a "low precision date" when the date in question is near a millennial boundary, e.g., if we aren't sure if somebody died in 1999 or 2000 (or 2000 and 2001, depending on how it's defined). Ghouston (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ghouston: I would say that "actually unknown" is where the external sources have said "we have looked and we don't know". For example, people who outright disappeared, or historical figures who stop appearing in the records after their period of notability. Yes, it's possible that a new date might be found sometime, but for the time being we can treat it as a "known unknown".
      • That's different from someone whose date of death is presumably a matter of historical record, but where we haven't imported it yet for one reason or another. EnWP models this with categories for "year of death unknown" and "year of death missing", which is a reasonably good solution. That doesn't work for us (because missing, no P570, can also equal "still alive") but I do think we need to distinguish these two cases.
      • For the case where someone died in 1999-2001 but we're not sure when, then year=2000 + sourcing circumstances "circa" would seem more useful than millennium-precision dates. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
        • 1999/2000 perhaps isn't a great example, but the problem is still likely to occur, e.g., with somebody born in 1900, with the year increasing as time goes by. Also, a date like "2nd millennium" seems pretty strange for somebody from the 19th century, while "unknown value" is accurate as long as we haven't been able to discover a date. Whether somebody else has also looked into it, and written "I haven't been able to discover a date" on a website somewhere, doesn't seem to make much difference to me. Ghouston (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Since the currently oldest recognized living person was born in 1903, it would seem safe to declare anybody born in 1902 or earlier to be dead. However, I guess the most likely error with this approach would be if people have incorrect birth dates. Ghouston (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It's up to the data-user to decide whether he wants to count a person where we don't know anything about their death as alive or dead. I see no reason why we should make a massive amount of unsourced entries in our own database with "unknown value".
There's some value on being able to list all people who died in the 3th century and for that reason dates with century precision can sometimes be useful. ChristianKl❫ 18:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

pq: reason for preferred rankEdit

We have reason for deprecation (P2241) as a qualifier enabling us to specify why a statement has been given the deprecated rank. We have no similar property, afaics, to specify why a statement has been given the preferred rank.

Anyone else think that should be rectified? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Support Seems useful to me because it explicitly marks the motivation for why a statement is preferred, which helps future editors decide whether it's non-destructive to change the preferred statement. --SilentSpike (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
sure. even if the value would be "editorial choice". --- Jura 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yup, that's where I was coming from w.r.t. coordinates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  Support Makes sense, and maybe it would nudge the football guys to rethink how they're using deprecation on names to make their wikipedia infoboxes look pretty ;-) Moebeus (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#reason_for_preferred_rank. Feel free to improve/correct the property proposal - property proposals not my speciality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Question re: portraits modeled after different peopleEdit

This question is re: Jerónimo Pérez (Q70298355). The current image is a painting theoretically of the friar, but it was painted after the friar's death and likely actually modeled off of a different person living in the friary (perhaps a Juan de Herrera). Is it appropriate to keep this picture on the page of the friar? I assume yes in the same way that we have images of other historical persons that don't actually represent them (e.g. Jesus Christ (Q302)). But is there any way (qualifier?) to indicate that this painting is not a literal likeness of Jerónimo Pérez (Q70298355)? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: related image (P6802) exists, though I’m not sure if it’s more appropriate in this case. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata turkerEdit

Hello, I am a regular french Wikipédia editor and each time I move a page in Wikipedia (french version), the change of the title's page is registered in the corresponding Wikidata's item (e.g. : "Startup Studio" to "Startup studio", 21:52, 30 August 2019). The frWiki sitelink of the item's page is updated. As far as I know, this is a feature of the Wikibase. But I do not want to be credited for the automatic change in Wikidata. I disagree to release my contributions under the Creative Commons CC0 License and I simply do not want to contribute to the Wikidata project. Is there a Wikipedia account's option to stop to be forced to contribute to Wikidata while contributing to Wikipedia or to stop to be credited for an automatic Wikidata's update made by the system ? --ContributorQ (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no such option. If you edit Wikimedia projects and do stuff that affects other projects as well, as changes of interwikilinks due to page moves do, then you do not have the option to opt-out of these edits. You would otherwise leave outdated mess for interwiki users (i.e. all other Wikipedia projects). Please also mind that organizing interwikilinks usually does not create a copyright-able work anyway, so these sort of edits are in the public domain (or very close to it) anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. So, unfortunately, such an option does not exist. But my point is that I do not want to be credited for an automatic change made by the system itself. It is like a bot using my own signature/account. I chose to join the Wikipedia project and I do not want to take part in the Wikidata project. I do think that to be forced to be credited on the Wikidata project while working only for Wikipedia is a problem.
Note: when one directly makes an interwikilink's change in a Wikidata's page, the system displays the message "By clicking "publish", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License." --ContributorQ (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay I see your position, but I really cannot follow you regarding why you consider this process to be problematic. Wikipedia interwikilinks are managed at Wikidata since almost 7 years, so it is sometimes inevitable to make contact with this project as a Wikipedia editor as well. There is really no disadvantage for you if you accumulate some (automatic) edits in this project; also, you do not release your contribution under a license that is less restrictive than necessary as interwiki relations are not copyright-able as a matter of principle; furthermore, you agree to the ToS with each and every edit in Wikipedia anyways. So what's the thing here…? —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@ContributorQ: I don't recall seeing that message on Wikidata, but it was clear: Don't press publish if you disagree. User contributions are optional. Now you know that some frWp changes cause a change in Wikidata. In your case, maybe you can ask a bot to do the change for you or ask on talk page for someone else to do the move. Aside from that, I would agree that from license point of view there is nothing to worry about. You can consider the changes to be credited to a bot and your name is there just for reference to the originating change on frWp. Is that ok? You can point to this discussion if someone accused you of being active on wikidata. Jagulin (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you imagine that there is any jurisdiction under which you can copyright the act of moving "Startup Studio" to "Startup studio"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I don't see where this question is leading. What if I say "yes, I can envision that"? I don't think the question was about copyright, but contribution and credits. Are you saying that contribution and credit only covers copyrighted material? The ToS normally mention the CC-BY-SA rather than CC0. If the change history had a tag saying "automated change, no copyright claimed" it would have been more clear which parts that are CC0 and maybe the user would accept that more easily. Jagulin (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The OP includes the text "I disagree to release my contributions under the Creative Commons CC0". If that's not about copyright, I'm a banana. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand how you peel, but regardless of copyright there is something attributed to the username (as if there is something to to waive) and "contributed". Another quote is "I do not want to take part in the Wikidata project", showing that the focus for the OP was no avoid having their name in the logs, regardless of license. Jagulin (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are unpatrolled changes rendered immediately at Wikipedia?Edit

Hello. In this edit to Q592 (gay), 2620:22:4000:1202:1fa1:f76b:c060:2f54 (talkcontribslogs) vandalized the English description. The diff page shows a bracketed hyperlink, "Mark as patrolled", which implies to me that this edit has not yet been patrolled, so, presumably, it's a low-confidence change, or not ready for prime time, or something of that nature; is that right? Nevertheless, the Wikipedia page w:Gay was showing the vandalized description as the "short description" at the top of the page. Can unpatrolled edits be blocked from being ported over to descriptions, infoboxes, or anywhere they might appear in sister projects, until they are patrolled?

I'm uncertain if this is a Wikidata or a Wikipedia issue; if the latter, please let me know, and I'll move this discussion. Thanks, (ping, please) Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot: Hi. We should contact the development team to know whether such restriction can be applied or not. If it is possible, pros and cons should be carefully analized. And this is a Wikidata matter, indeed. Esteban16 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This feature is called pending changes. I doubt that there are enough patrollers on Wikidata to check everything, though. Ghouston (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know that extension could be used in this case. But like said above, it would require a tremendous amount of help. --Esteban16 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Esteban16, Ghouston:, thanks for your comments. Yes, I'm familiar with pcr on Wikipedia, and not infrequently review changes myself. Since I'm not nearly as familiar with Wikidata as either of you, would one of you mind taking the lead on this, as far as taking it to the dev team? If you'd prefer I do it, I'm willing; but it sounds like you know much more about the situation than I do. I totally believe you that there aren't enough patrollers on Wikidata, but that would mean that mostly autopatrolled changes would get ported to Wikipedia. I don't know the ratio of (edits by active, non-autopatrolled Wikidata editors / edits by active wikidata editors); if it is not huge, maybe having unpatrolled changes blocked from porting to Wikipedia is not too large a price to pay, even if some percentage of unpatrolled edits are good ones. What do you think?
Also, there must be some cross-project interest in this discussion from the Wikipedia side as well; I'll see if I can come up with the right project or noticeboard, and alert them to this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Patrolling edits on Wikidata can be difficult, since changes to labels and descriptions can be in a multitude of languages. If one edit isn't patrolled, then subsequent edits would also be backlogged as unpatrolled. It would also break site links when pages on Wikipedia are renamed, since the related Wikidata edits are often by users who aren't autopatrolled. Some bad edits on Wikidata are probably found when they are displayed on other wikis, and blocking that process would presumably make Wikidata worse, not better (it's likely that unpartrolled edits would just sit around, until somebody notices the backlog and patrols them en masse, just so that their own edits can go through). Ghouston (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
So, it would seem like the focus should be on blocking unpatrolled edits from appearing on Sister projects then; do you agree? Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No, since sister projects would then tend to display old data, which would not necessarily be any more correct than new data. It may be outdated, for example. Ghouston (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you say that old data wouldn't be more correct? Don't we rely more on autopatrolled users, than newer ones? Otherwise, what is the point of even having this distinction among users? As a Wikipedia user, I would rather see formerly correct data that is now possibly old, than up-to-the-minute vandalism. What am I missing? Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
An item would stop updating once it has been edited by a new user, as I understand it. They may have just changed a sitelink because they renamed a page on Wikipedia, so it's a perfectly good edit. All subsequent edits would also be ignored, since you'd have to take the last version with no unpatrolled edits. You'd be throwing out a lot of perfectly good edits just to avoid one perfectly good unpatrolled edit (or vandalism, maybe in some language you don't even care about, as the case may be). Ghouston (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your feedback. We need more eyeballs on this; I've notified WP:VPT and relevant WikiProjects at Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely the simple solution is not to import Wikidata descriptions into a language Wikipedia? Keeping each short description on the local Wiki allows local Wikipedians to curate them there. There's nothing lost by not using the Wikidata description as the version in a given language isn't used in more than one language Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
At first glance, I could support that approach, but I know little about this topic so far. As something that would affect the interaction between multiple sister projects, this deserves airing at a venue where it can elicit thorough discussion by numerous concerned editors from multiple projects, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is the right venue. Perhaps at Meta? Mathglot (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Here it is probably still better than Meta in terms of engagement. However, different projects use vastly different strategies of interacting with Wikidata, and I am not sure there is one solution which would be good for everybody. Then discussing it separately at every project might be an even better strategy, though right now any discussion at the English Wikipedia concerning Wikidata has a good chance to be closed as "Never ever any interaction possible" and will likely not be productive.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, can you disambiguate your quoted remark: does that mean, 1) Discussions between wp and wd are impossible, 2) The data on the two projects should not interact/be imported, 3) Something else? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant "We do not want any data from Wikidata, and ideally we do not even want to hear about Wikidata anymore". Note that this is not my personal opinion but my experience of participation in many discussions over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, Okay, thanks. It sounds like there's a lot of history here that I'm unaware of. Can you perhaps drop me a link or two here or at my Talk page, which will help me come up to speed on past discussions about this? It also explains RexxS's somewhat exasperated response at VPT, which I now understand better; RexxS: I apologize if I barged into a touchy subject without enough background. Just trying to do the right thing at WP with respect to shortdesc. Sounds like I have a lot of reading to do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This gives a good flavor how these discussions typically run. There was something more contentious in the beginning of 2018, but I can not easily find it now. Arguments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=812449556 here[ also give an impression.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Ymblanter. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Commons also uses the descriptions from Wikidata (via the infobox) - the use of descriptions isn't something exclusive to Wikipedias. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I understand the decision against not showing unpatrolled edits is to allow Wikipedia users who might not be autoconfirmed on Wikidata fix errors in Wikipedia infoboxes that display Wikidata content and display the new information immediately. ChristianKl❫ 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If they were autoconf on Wikipedia, couldn't they simply override it there, by adding param=value in the Infobox, rather than coming here? Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, I think you argued last time for the status quo. ChristianKl❫ 07:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Mathglot: They could but that is really not what we should be striving for as a movement. We need to work together and not everyone doing their own thing. If we continue down the road of everyone doing their own thing instead of fixing something that's wrong for everyone then we will continue to massively disadvantage medium and smaller languages and wikis. That should not be ok for the movement because it goes against our vision. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
So, what is the right approach here, then? Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Award rationalsEdit

Is "award rationale" meant to be a direct quote from the award giver or is it meant to be as terse as possible? I went for the quote at Francis Sherman Currey (Q5482358). --RAN (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've assumed that it's supposed to be a quote, although I'm not sure how long a rationale may be before it potentially leads to copyright problems. Ghouston (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have them when there it can also be the reference ?? GerardM (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-notifying users when their username is added to a wikidata itemEdit

  Moved from Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/10: T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for having let this thread time out into the archive. I think that it bears a bit more discussion in case there is an automatable solution. I've been thinking about this from entering Wikimedian in Residence info into wikidata (see table in progress), where the WiRs either associate their real name with their account, or sometimes are known only by their username. Non-consentual outing of users seems like something that users should be informed of by some mechanisms @Jura: Is there a mechanism to email users through the address associated with their account? Perhaps the notifications tab? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I question the notability of these people. Besides that you'll make some people very uncomfortable by violating their privacy or at least making it very easy for others to violate privacy. Multichill (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I see no use for this feature to exist. Unless there is vandalism, you know you are associated with a real world issue, why do you need to know if you get named on it's online item.
And as to Multichill's notability concern, I take a different stance. I think the "questionable notablity people" would be the ones adding their own names to items, they wouldn't be concerned with being notified because they already know (they would want to know when it gets removed). However, there are instances (far and few between), where people do manage their own "press". Not every one is Lady Gaga with a team of publicists. For example, in my family, I have a published educator, published doctor, and a recorded musician. If one of their "works" get added, I would love to help populate information. I search. I follow by adding to my watchlist. I use "what links here". I think "what links here" serves the same purpose without the notification. Quakewoody (talk)
Many of the people on the page headed "Questionable notability Wikimedians" meet our notability criteria easily (disclosure: I am one of them) - and a number of them have been kept by consensus, after deletion proposals. They include winners of significant awards, and authors of academic papers and books cited on Wikipedia and in academia. Labelling people as such is a violation of our BLP policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm coming from the point of view of hoping that such users would be able to then add additional information to the item when notified of its existance. For wikimedians in residence, it' be useful to have info on sex, nationality, profession etc, but that info is often difficult to come by. However the subject may be better placed to add it. E.g. This query is still sparsely populated. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata requirementsEdit

I just reinstalled my browser and Wikidata doesn't works correctly. There is nothing under statements and If I want to edit labels it redirects me to page with description "You may have reached this special page because the item you tried to edit wasn't fully loaded for label/description edits to work there." Is it problem related to browser cookies, frameworks, Java or Flash Player? Eurohunter (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That special page is shown to users who have an outdated browser. Any browser older than the ones specified as "modern" on mw:Compatibility#Browser support matrix are considered outdated.--Snaevar (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
When reporting browser-related issues, please state your browser, its version, and your operating system. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Merged but not attachedEdit

I noticed that recently I merged a couple of items, but the transferred site links did not seem to be attached to wikidata anymore. For example Q9827687 I merged into Category:Social economy (Q7214799), but now oc:Categoria:Economia sociala seems not attached to wikidata anymore. Or Q10767336 I merged into Category:Ditrema (Q9610495) but zh:Category:海鮒屬 does not seem to be attached. Is this to be repaired in some way? Can something be done manually? Does it just need patience? Lymantria (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Just add a sitelink to the WD item to re-attach it. --SCIdude (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it the site links are listed at the wikidata item, but when you visit them, there is no sign of a wikidata item. See for instance https://oc.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categoria:Economia_sociala&action=info. Lymantria (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the sitelink, then added it again. Now it's there. No idea about the cause. --SCIdude (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been finding a number of cases like this recently - items are merged, and although it looks fine on Wikidata, the information from (interwikis or content fetched through the sitelink) it no longer shows up on Commons/enwp. Any edit (e.g., adding 'test' to the labels, or removing a property) seems to clear it up. It doesn't seem to be any particular user, and I think the oldest case I found yesterday was from the 26th September (Category:İlkadım District (Q32709947)). Some other examples were Category:Polish books (Q10116410), Category:November-class submarines (Q6207422), and Category:2013 papal conclave (Q6215728) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated ORCID identifiersEdit

I asked attention of ORCID for our duplicate ORCID identifiers.. Many of them have been deprecated. this is an example. Is it possible to identify deprecated ORCID identifiers and remove them? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. No, it should not be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
For deprecated identifiers they should be set as deprecated in Wikidata.--GZWDer (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please make sure that the functionality that reports of errors takes them into account and, PLEASE what is the point, these indicators can be found at source. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Adopt a user program in WikidataEdit

Hello,

I am interested in Wikidata and I have looked to some filters and there I saw that the number of editors with a little amount of edits is big. I have thinked about how it was for me to start editing in Wikidata and for me it was at the begin not so easy. I think it were great if there is a program like the Mentorenprogramm in the German Wikipedia or the Program Adopt-a-user in the English Wikipedia to help people start Editing Wikidata. What do you think about starting a Project like the mentioned ones here in Wikidata. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many edits is probably just a sign that someone knows how to write program code. Many might not want this. --SCIdude (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That depends on what you mean with many edits. A user that makes 10,000s of edits is likely writing some code. We however have a lot more users that make 5 edits/month then we have users who make 100/month. ChristianKl❫ 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of a user mentorship program, if not (per SCIdude) for the specific reason of increasing the quantity of a user's edits. Mahir256 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Are you interested in participating in a project like that @Mahir256: and help people by specific questions in getting started with Wikidata. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the mentoring done, would you actively push the users to come back and contribute or be available only if they ask? I got a welcome note with starter links, I think that was nice and interpreted that as having someone to turn to if needed. On the other hand I think there are chats for those asking for help. Proactively improving the existing documentation and tutorials is a good way to lower the threshold, so reviewing beginner FAQ could be a project start. In many ways I think most users come here with the assumption that WD supports their language wiki needs rather than having a goal of itself. Clarifying that balance I think is important to foster quality contributions, but I also think that WD currently doesn't have the answer. Having the "mentoring project" at the Wp rather than in WD, I think would be a good way of showing how WD improve Wp, and I assume a lot of that mentoring is already managed that way. Jagulin (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate (Wikisource) badges added to Wikipedia articlesEdit

Hi,

Lately, a lot of wikisource badges have been added to wikipedia articles ; those are inappropriate because they just measure the correction level of a text, not a decision of the community.

Very often, these addings have been made at the same time as the link was added, thus making it impossible to undo the edit without removing the link at the same time, and making it very long to remove the badge from each link, and impossible to add an explanation for the contributor to prevent further error.

The concerned badges are :

This has been first discussed by the fr community, and many wrong badges have been removed, especially on frwp, but it is not a typically fr problem, and should be solved on the general scale.

[edit] : there seems to be a real misunderstanding of what badges stand for, as on Tallinn (Q1770), the hawp link was added 4 (!!) badges, 2 of them being wikisource badges… (which I removed, without touching the other badges, not being able to judge of the relevance). - same here on lesbian (Q6649), and 6 !!!! on Samira Moussa

At least, Special:SetSiteLink page should contain a message about which links to add and why, instead of blindly invite users to add them...

Would it be possible to put constraints for badge additions, so that badges that were made for wikisource could not be added to wikipedia links (and the other way round too). - Thanks for your help on this. --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not think this is possible. I do not see how a check could be run whether it is a correct badge or not. On the other hand, only autoconfirmed users may add badges, and I guess there are not so many users of the French Wikisource who are autoconfirmed at Wikidata, it might be easier to leave all of them a personal message explaining what went wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I fixed all remaining cases of Wikisource-only badges on non-Wikisource sitelinks.
  • Mind that there is another Wikisource-only badge which you have not listed above: digital document (Q28064618)
  • On a side note: there is a badge type good list (Q51759403) for ptwiki and maybe eswiki, but frwikivoyage does use it quite a bit as well (query). Is there such a page status defined in frwikivoyage at all? fr-N user Hsarrazin could maybe help me here :-)
  • There is some more stuff related badges available on a page in my user space: User:MisterSynergy/misc/sitelink badges

MisterSynergy (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing the cleanup MisterSynergy, - my personal final query for detecting them all is now https://w.wiki/A3i... - thanks for your queries on badges  
I was not aware of digital document (Q28064618) and would not know how to use it... do you know who created it, in what context ? I think it was perhaps enwikisource ?
the problem is not of Frwikisource users wrongly adding badges (I'm probably the only one doing so, using a tool specifically designed to retrieve it from frwikisource)
the problem is wikisource text correction badges (indicators) being used on wikipedia links (or list, categories, and I even templates), by wikipedia users who do not understand those badges. I've tried to leave a message on each of those users personal page, but it is not very easy when they speak russian, arabic, chinese, etc...
I thought perhaps a constraint on those badges, excluding wikipedia links, or an abuse-filter could detect those wrong additions (the specific values of these badges) used in "wikipedia group" links ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, digital document (Q28064618) seems to be somewhat enwikisource-specific per this query. It was defined per request at phab:T153186.
  • User:Abián created another phabricator task at phab:T235374 yesterday to request that only applicable badges should be displayed in the UI. If that was implemented, it would already be quite helpful.
  • I wrote a small script yesterday to batch-remove wrong Wikisource-only badges from non-Wikisource sitelinks, including a descriptive edit summary. I could run it occasionally if nobody wants to set up a continuous bot job.
MisterSynergy (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I knew a script could do it, but I can't write one, so I must have cleaned up hundreds of them by hand yesterday, and let some messages on contributors pages   --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec.)@MisterSynergy: Wondering how to translate digital document (Q28064618) in German? It looks like the only existing badge that miss German translation. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, now it has German label+description. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Badges for sitelinks to redirectsEdit

What is the process for creating new badges?

Per the community comments at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata, it would be good for sitelinks to redirects to be identified, ideally distinguishing intentional redirects (those marked with Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589) on the Wikipedia) from redirects not so marked (which may be left-overs from merges, and may indicate duplicated items here that should be merged).

Would it be straightforward to create a pair of badges for these, ideally kept updated by a regularly-running bot? Jheald (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

this should be asked on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Phab:T235420 "Create wikidata badges to indicate when sitelinks point to Wikipedia redirect pages" now created. Jheald (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: If/when such badges do get created, would it be easy for you to write a bot to keep them updated? Jheald (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Lydia has responded on Phab that "Adding two badges is easy enough. We just need the name and the icon for it." [emphasis added]
I have therefore created two items, sitelink to redirect (Q70893996) and intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304) for these badges, where we can start to assemble translations.
Icons next to the links in the sidebar will be very very small, and therefore need to be quite simple. I would suggest that possible might be:
    English
    English
for redirects, and 'intentional' redirects (ie redirect pages marked with Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589)), respectively. Yes, the grey and the blue are almost indistinguishable, but to most Wikipedia readers the distinction will hardly matter.
In the links section of wikidata item pages we could use
Charlie Reid (musician)    
Charlie Reid (musician)    
These badges would be straightforward to pick up with WDQS queries, in the same way that we can currently pick up featured articles etc.
Does this seem viable?
Other potential icons can be found in c:Category:Redirect_arrows, c:Category:Norro style 1 icons (arrows), etc., if people would prefer somthing like
    English
for the sidebar, or
Charlie Reid (musician)    
for the wikidata page (or something quite different).
The other redirect icon is also available off-the-peg in red,
Charlie Reid (musician)    
if people want something more attention-seeking, since redirects that are not "intended" can often indicate unresolved duplication here. I have thought to go for the less strident grey, as not all wikipedias offer the Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589) template; but what do people think? Jheald (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, perhaps we're better without the circular border. (The existing "rosette" icons don't have such a thing.) Would something more like
Charlie Reid (musician)   
Charlie Reid (musician)   
look better?
Or one could use the same redirect icons as the sidebar,
Charlie Reid (musician)   
Charlie Reid (musician)   
This is perhaps more direct and explicit. Jheald (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Also in red, if that would make redirect links not confirmed as intentional stand out better
Charlie Reid (musician)   
But perhaps that needs to be a little more muted. Jheald (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you should just make a suggestion according to your personal preferences in the phab topic. If there is opposition at a later point, we can still update the icons. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
My current preference is for the last two -- the red for redirect pages that don't have the Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589) template, the blue for those that do.
I'll sleep on it, and give the chance for anyone else to comment overnight, and then after that let's go for it. As you say, it's easy enough to update later, once it's clearer how it looks in the wild. Jheald (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Such a bot looks doable at first glance, but putting all parts together would be quite a task. SQL queries are rather simple, the required SPARQL query is no problem either. Sorting things to figure out required edits based on the different query inputs is not overly complicated. What looks a bit nasty is the requirement that these queries have to be run for each and every Wikimedia project individually, which means that one probably does not want to do it daily.
Regarding the actual editing, I am not sure whether pywikibot has useful badge editing capabilities. The aforementioned script does not use any bot framework and makes direct API calls, which is okay for a one-off 500 edits batch, but for a continuous job that is not sufficient… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like badge support in pywikibot went live in June this year (phab:T128202). If we ping @Lokal Profil: he may be able to tell us how complete the support is, and whether he thinks it would be up to the task. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint, indeed there is support now. I tried it yesterday with PAWS, but there seemed to be no badge support yet in spite of some indications in the documentation [1]. Now I just found that PAWS has an outdated version of pywikibot (Pywikibot version: [https] r-pywikibot-core.git (71e36c1, g10980, 2019/04/30, 16:42:46, OUTDATED)). On Toollabs, there is apparently now badge support. I have not actually used it yet, but the badges are visible at least… —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If it takes multiple days to have up to date icons I would advocate against red as a color to draw attention. Having blue/grey is enough to give the user the information they need and I see no need to draw a huge amount of attention. We also need to decide about what to do with Wikis that don't have the template. ChristianKl❫ 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to add - I think the blue/grey plain arrows look great. Hopefully avoids any colourblindness issues that might come from blue/red or blue/green, and it's a nice muted colourscheme that fits with the rest of the UI. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Quality of location propertiesEdit

Hello. I've been testing stuff at a Wikidata sandbox, and stumbled upon a situation where country (P17) is set to a particular country, but location (P276) is set to a location not located within that country. Do we have a way of notifying the editor for such occurrences, and maybe also a way of searching such issues currently on other items? Note that this is not limited to the mentioned properties, but could also be in other property types such as located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Cheers. Rehman 12:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You may be looking for a query like this one: https://w.wiki/A2o Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

SPARQL query mapEdit

Hi all,

I am thinking about embedding the result of a SPARQL map query in the frontpage of a website. It shouldn't have many visits but I am not sure about the limitations. I was wondering if this is it the right way to do it. Thanks in advance! --Gustavo.candela (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If possible, please set up a regularly running script that retrieves and caches the query result on your server. It could run daily or hourly or so, depending on how dynamically the data set changes. Otherwise the request might quickly get blocked by the Query Servers. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding provinces to dutch municipalitiesEdit

I would like to add provinces to all the dutch municipalities (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2039348) in Wikidata, the problem is I don't really know the best way to do it. The municipalities sometimes use https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P131 but this creates some problems as there are other entities there (non-provinces or other municipalities from the past). This makes the query show double results which is inconvenient, an example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2457179 (4 results in the query). What would be the best way to look up the provinces only? Maybe somehow use https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q134390 in this situation?


Here is the query:

SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheidLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  { ?municipality wdt:P131 ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid. } }

Try it!

PS, Should I delete old and solved questions when creating new ones? Antoni1626 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

P131 is the correct way to go; that's what it's there for. There are two or three expedients to consider; but you'll need to decide on a policy going forwards. Using Scotland as a model, we appear to have moved towards redundant P131s at a couple of different levels of government - Local Authority and Civil Parish. Each P131 is qualified with object has role (P3831). It's thus possible and easy to query to get items by Parish or by Local Authority. (We'll probably implement a preferred rank for Local Authoriies eventually). Example at Shemore, Farmsteading, South East Range (Q17772983). Next, it is also possible to end-date old provinces, if that's an issue - example at Dunoon and Kilmun (Q68815389). Next, so far as queries are concerned, one can constrain the result set accoring to the P31 of a P131, so as long as all contemporary provinces have a common P31 there is no query problem. We're moving beyond the point at which we can rely on simple queries which do not test for values but rather make bad assumption. Next if there are P131s which are not administrative entities (e.g. they're really a location (P276), then they should be moved from P131 to P276, and/or removed. And finally, as already noted, statement rank may be used to provide a wdt: view of whatever the thruthy situation appears to be. Hope some of that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Old questions shouldn't be deleted. They get archived after a while automatically and having them in the history can be useful for people who have similar question in the future. ChristianKl❫ 09:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How would a query look that does the same as the query above and looks for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) object has role (P3831) province of the Netherlands (Q134390) ? Thanks for the help! Antoni1626 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Antoni1626: Something like this (last three lines changed, compared to your original query):
SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheidLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  ?municipality p:P131 ?gelegen_statement .
  ?gelegen_statement ps:P131 ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid.
  ?gelegen_statement pq:P3831 wd:Q134390
}
Try it! -- Jheald (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Antoni1626: A different query to try to do the same thing could look like this:
SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheidLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  ?municipality wdt:P131 ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid.
  ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid wdt:P31 wd:Q134390
}
Try it!
This query just checks that the final ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid is a province of the Netherlands (Q134390), rather than checking whether the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statement has a object has role (P3831) = province of the Netherlands (Q134390) qualifier.
Normally if the different levels of administrative areas nest well within each other, we recommend only to give the nearest (lowest) level of the hierarchy in the P131, and let higher levels be worked out from it.
The complication happens if there are different types of 'lowest' administrative area that a location may be in; or if the nesting from lowest to highest doesn't work neatly, so one can't tell the query to just go up the chain until it finds an item with instance of (P31) = province of the Netherlands (Q134390). It's really only then, as a last resort, that one should start adding extra P131 values to items, with object has role (P3831) qualifiers to distinguish what they all are. Jheald (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Antoni1626: happy to see you working on this. I think you need to improve it a bit. A municipality of the Netherlands (Q2039348) should always be located in a province. On items like Nieuwolda (Q2483664) this should have an end time. I think these are the ones to fix:
SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code  WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum . }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  MINUS { ?municipality wdt:P131/wdt:P31 wd:Q134390 } 
}
Try it! Multichill (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Is ?municipality wdt:P131/wdt:P31 wd:Q134390 required (887 results to fix), or is ?municipality wdt:P131+/wdt:P31 wd:Q134390 sufficient (104 results to fix, https://w.wiki/AAT), i.e. allowing a P131 chain to get there in more than one link ? Jheald (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is, municipalicities are always directly under the province. Multichill (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #386Edit

type mismatch with License propertyEdit

Currently, the names of various copyright licenses are alternate names for copyright determination methods, for example PD-US-expired is alternate for published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828), which is an instance of copyright determination method (Q61005213) only. license (P275) has its possible values restricted to only instances of license (Q79719), copyright status (Q50424085), or as a service (Q25036597). What is the solution for this? Should there in fact be items for licenses separate from determination methods? Or should we add instance of license to published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828); or expand the possible values for license (P275) to include copyright determination method (Q61005213)?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levana Taylor (talk • contribs) at 19:57, 14 October 2019‎ (UTC).

@Levana Taylor: I think you're mixing up license (P275) and copyright status (P6216). From the license property: "license under which this copyrighted work is released". The property should only be used on things that are copyrighted (at some point in time). I see you corrected yourself. Multichill (talk)
OK, yeah, forehead slap time. Thanks Levana Taylor (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals to change data typesEdit

I've refactored the above. Please use the talk pages of the respective properties to discuss this set of proposals, rather than flooding this page with duplicate and empty sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will continue there, I was working according to Help:Data_type#Changing_datatype which reads "To propose such a change, you may start a discussion at the talk page of the property or project chat." - apologies for the annoyance, will discuss on each property page instead then. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I removed the list and replaced it with links to specific properties below. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are some properties which have Data type International Standard Identifier for Libraries (P791) but should in my view be External identifier, please find below links to the proposals to change their data types, please add your opinion.:

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Iwan.Aucamp: some of these didn't get converted due to opposition. I recall some properties that looked like identifiers, but turned out not really to be one. A lot of single value constraint (Q19474404) and distinct values constraint (Q21502410) violation is usually an indication that something is wrong. Some just got missed and can get converted. Would probably be nice to have links to the original discussions. I think these are on these pages:
Multichill (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Thanks, will link to original discussion. I was not aware that External identifier has a uniqueness constraint (it should maybe be added here: External identifier). I will go through though and remove proposals from properties where the constraint cannot be met. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Iwan.Aucamp: Not a hard constraint, more like a soft one. If the uniqueness drops say below 90% that's a good indicator that something is maybe not an identifier. I wouldn't close any of these discussions now. Some people might not agree and should be given the chance to comment. Multichill (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

page is not showing on Google.Edit

Dear sir,

I craeted a page on wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_of_Votes . Then I Created wikidata profile of this page, Q70884813. Problem is that....this page is not showing on google. What is the problem??

User talk:Virenderthind2019

  1. convenience link en:The Game of Votes (don't presume everyone is on a mobile device).
  2. We have no control of what Google does. - Jmabel (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Virenderthind2019: Articles in (only) English Wikipedia may only be indexed after they are patroled or at least 90 days old. See w:WP:NOINDEX.--GZWDer (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Jmabel how about if i made an article months ago in ArWiki - have no entire in EnWiki but Wikidata item is complete -but still year of death not showing when you search the item on Google in English? Something is wrong for date of death, especially for new items. --Ruwaym (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, we have no control of what Google does. - Jmabel (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

bulk load in wikidataEdit

Dear friens, I have the following situation with a private instance of wikidata, the case is that we want to upload 1,5 millions of dataset, that is moreless 30 millions of triples. We are loading at a rate of 1 data set per second, but that is too slow, because we would be talking about 46 working days to load this dataset. We just created a bot, and modified the average time per edit, however nothing changes, and the processing time holds. I thank you in advance any recommendation.

Luis Ramos  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luis.ramos.pst.ag (talk • contribs) at 11:23, 15 October 2019‎ (UTC).

@Luis.ramos.pst.ag: If your Wikibase instance is internal, you don't need to care the speed of editing (Wikidata itself care it because 1. the database is replicated, 2. changes must be dispatched to Wikibase clients and 3. there's a public query service that should be updated continously). You may try to load the dataset in parallel. Note the speed may still be limited by the performance of the server.--GZWDer (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand anything you guys are talking about other than "speed". So, all I have to add is - I've found Wikidata (and other the sister wiki projects) has been going really slow. Take that into consideration. If the site itself is running slow, anything you are doing with it is going to run slow. Quakewoody (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
You have come on to wikidata, Quakewoody, a wikibase site which receives iirc ~750,000 edits per day to tell us that your wikibase instance is loading data slowly and to suggest that the cause is the wikibase code. Rather than, for instance, your slow server, or some deficiency in the method you're using to upload data, or a configuration parameter mis-set. You profess not to understand a mildly technical answer, above. I suspect you may have exhausted our ability to help you. I note https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Support which seems like a better starting point to access wikibase help, than this board. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
What I said was - the site has been running very slow. I didn't say it was a slow site. My "slow server" has seen a dramatic slowdown in the last few weeks on this site, not all other sites. Quakewoody (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with an itemEdit

Hi all,

I'm still a newbie to WD so I apologize if it's a stupid question, but is there a way to add two "inception" values to an item? I wanted to add a party (Q277879) to a politician's data page, but an error message came up, saying the party was dissolved in 1949 and the policitian was born later. The party was dissolved in 1949 but was refounded in 1989, and it considers itself the same party. Even page Q277879 shows this error next to the leader's name who was also born after 1949. How can I add the 1989 date without getting error messages?

Thanks in advance. Alensha (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • If the two incarnations of the party are to be considered a single thing, we need to treat the period it was inactive as a hiatus, not a dissolution and a new inception. - Jmabel (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thanks! how can I add a hiatus? haven't found this property on List of properties/Time. Alensha (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think a 40 year hiatus is pretty questionable, is there any evidence that they are really the same party, such as having the same people involved, or is it basically a new party that's taken over an old name? Dormancy can be indicated using dormancy (Q55909176) like on United Australia Party (Q15130081). Ghouston (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That party was also at one point claimed to be a continuation of United Australia Party (Q1728956), but Wikipedia unsurprisingly treats it as a new party. Ghouston (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

military specialtyEdit

How do we handle a military specialty like "radioman" or "medic" or "rifleman" or "sharpshooter", they are not ranks but military specialties. They are not really occupations, since they only occur during military service, usually just a few years. --RAN (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

field of work (P101) maybe? I don't think that there's any rule that occupations need to last for any particular length of time. Ghouston (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)