# Wikidata:Project chat

 Wikidata project chatPlace 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 Start a new discussion
 On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/11.

## wikilinks on wikisource editions through wikidataEdit

Notified participants of WikiProject Books@Yann, Tpt:

Hi,

Wikisource editions of texts, are edition (Q3331189) items that must be linked to the work item through edition or translation of (P629) (see Wikidata:WikiProject Books).

Unfortunately, this means that wikisource texts are not directly linked anymore to each other, thus breaking the link between the different languages.

I remember once reading here about a template that could restore these links, using the parent/work item to automatically link all editions, thus allowing to not only have access to other languages, but also other editions in same language.

Do you remember who talked about it ? It would be very important to have this, or even an automatic feature in wikisource, to automatically link texts to all other texts linked through edition or translation of (P629) to the same work item...

Thanks for your help !  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hsarrazin (talk • contribs) at 7. 10. 2017, 15:53‎ (UTC).

User:Hsarrazin: That sounds like s:sv:Modul:Sandlåda/Innocent bystander 3. You can see it in action at for example s:sv:Bibeln (Karl XII), and User:Innocent bystander is probably the one who best understands how it works. Peter Alberti (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Wikidata weekly summary #284Edit

I just fixed the father's father issues, by removing both relationships. Syced (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Syced: Removing both seems to be bad as it also removes the correct one. It should be possible to determine the correct one by looking at the data of birth. ChristianKl (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to leave the correct information in simple cases, but in most cases the situation is just too complicated for a non-expert, for instance when reference information is no readily available or when many members of a family share the exact same name+surname. Let's think the other way: Would you add two statements while knowing that one of the two is wrong (but you don't know which one), or would you just refrain from adding them? Syced (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Terribly unhelpful, especially as the query was sent to many people who could try to sort it out as well. The problem we had in the past with some of these properties is that when one typed "father" property:P40 came up first. The inverse might have been true for "child".
--- Jura 09:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Syced: I generally follow "When in doubt, do no harm", so when I don't know anything about whether a statement is true or false I neither add nor remove statements. ChristianKl () 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:@Jura1: If a statement is probably false (50%), then I would rather not have it in Wikidata, but that's just me. As a maker of applications that use Wikidata, I hate it when the data is wrong (that happens often). I would rather have only 4 solid statement than 8 statements with a 50% probability that each is false. I highly doubt any specialist about them reads Wikidata Weekly (maybe I am just bad at finding reference information?), but anyway here are the persons whom relationship I modified, feel free to fix them and add references:
Thanks all for caring! Syced (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## IP adress making modification on his own beliefsEdit

I want to point this IP author of this modification: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q5482740&diff=588260041&oldid=588249764 who does several similar modification. As a computer engineer as a diploma and as a passionate about computer science and science is general, I am really very confident that this precise modification is totally wrong. (and as nearly as confident that the same kind modification they did are wrong to) For the ones who are not aware of such things and want to make their own opinion, I suggest to read the wikipedia article about the subjects where he undo everything and check that he is incorrect. for example for this precise diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_scientist and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmer . I tried to established dialog with this ip just now, but if the dialog fail I suppose I will have to ask for a bloc of the ip for lack of discussion. Xavier Combelle (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Xavier Combelle: Hmm... I'm kind of torn about this. Full disclosure - I am a computer scientist by training and hold two degrees in "C.S." and engineering. If the question was, "Is programming a subclass of computer science?" I would say it is clearly true. However, the moniker "computer scientist" implies a pedigree or title that may or may not apply to "programmer." So to clarify - if someone who's never taken a CS class in their life learns a lot from StackExchange and picks up PHP from an online tutorial, and builds a cool script, they can be called a programmer. Would I call them a computer scientist? No. That person now knows programming. Is that person utilizing computer science skills and concepts? Yes. Is that person necessarily a computer scientist? No. Does this distinction make sense? -- Fuzheado (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think calling programming a subclass of computer science is like calling truck driving a subclass of mechanical engineering. A basketball player uses concepts of physics but that doesn't make him a physicist or suggest that we should classify basketball as a subclass of physics. ChristianKl (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Ethan "Bubblegum" Tate. 19:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
For your information, I also sometimes edit connected, as Hercule. That's not because I edit not connected that Xavier Combelle can start a discussion by anticipating a block if I don't agree with him...
Don't forget that Wikikada is not a database just for english speakers, but for all the Wikimedia projets. As a french native speaker I'm argue with the french definitions.
"Computer science" = "informatique". "Computer scientist" = "informaticien". There is no doubt that a "programmeur" is an "informaticien", that means someone working on the "informatique" field.
The question is not about someone leaning how to make some few programming, but about someone whose profession is to program. This person is a computer scientist, even if he can't be compared with a computer science doctor. Comparing the relation between a programmer and the computer science to a baseball player and physic is an insult to programmers. A baseball player can have no idea about physic whereas a programmer (as a professionnal) must know computer science to have a diploma to justify their professional skills.
Regards.
--90.63.244.220 08:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I consider that Xavier Combelle can't impose me to argue previously to revert his changes, because it's him that change an established situation. He must establish a consensus to change it.
--90.63.244.220 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Having a degree in programming isn't required to work as a programmer. These days people work as a programmer after taking a 3 month coding bootcamp in which they aren't trained in what's considered computer science. ChristianKl (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There is the same problem with Q81096. Engineer is a scientific profession. So the "engineer" must be a sub-class of "scientific", even if it has nothing to do with science academic research. Otherwise there can be not structured hierarchy between professions. If this must be changed it can't be by removing the relation between these elements, but by creating more sub-elements to make the relation more precise (both are scientific professions). --90.63.244.220 08:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if having a "Bachelor of Science" would be sufficient for being a scientist, not every engineer has a "Bachelor of Science". Plenty of engineers have a "Bachelor of Engineering". ChristianKl (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:Hercule I am french too. In french there is no distinction between the name given to Computer science and computer engenering that doesn't mean the difference doesn't exists. The profession of a computer scientist is not to make program. It's profession is to make mathematical reasoning about programs. It's discipline is a subset of mathematics. As they usually implement their mathematical reasoning, computer scientist are de facto programmers. And as such computer scientist are basically a subset of programmer. But the vast majority of programmer are not computer scientist. For engineer the problem is pretty similar, an engineer use science, he doesn't build science and as such is not a scientist. One of the main criteria to be qualified of scientist is to have scientific activity which concretely translate by publishing in pair review journals. I actually found both of the problems by looking on the persons who had profession as a subset of scientist where I found a lot of persons who never published a scientific article but were programmers, to start with Jimbo Wales (Actually I did not check if Jimbo Wales actually published a scientific article, but he is for sure not known to be a computer scientist).
Please Hercule read the wikipedia articles on the subjects they should be clear.
Note that User:SharkD beg to differ is a reference to the humoristic comics futurama is not intended to be take seriously.
If a consensus should be drawn from this state of discussion, we are three persons, User:Fuzheado,User:ChristianKl and me to agree and User:Hercule is singled out, so the consensus result should be on our position and not Hercule one. Xavier Combelle (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your point and agree you're at least 3.
But I think that there is a problem with the removal of engeneers and programmer for the "science related professions". Do you see a way to have such a relation established on the professions hierarchy ?
--90.63.244.220 13:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean with the term "science related professions"? Is it something besides needing a "Bachlor of Science" to practice the profession? ChristianKl (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
"science related professions" means that this is a work that needs science skills ("Computer science"), by opposition of other professions that are "legal profession" and other that are "creation professions". In french we call it "profession scientifique", to distinguish it from "profession juridique", "profession artistique",...
--Hercule (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Hercule: In German we have no trouble to speak of Rechtswissenschaft (science of the law) which we model in Wikidata as jurisprudence (Q16549001) which subclasses "social science". On what ground are you arguing that people use the skills they learn in their studies of "Rechtswissenschaft" (science of the law) aren't practicing science based skills but computer science somehow implies a scientific skill? ChristianKl () 20:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hercule You can try to create a class named "science related profession" and include programmer and engineer in it if you want. Just make it different of scientist (Q901) and not a subclass of it. Xavier Combelle (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

## Suggestion: Automatically provide the functionality for Template:Interwiki extra (Q21286810) for all items with said to be the same as (P460) or permanent duplicated item (P2959), and make said to be the same as (P460) and permanent duplicated item (P2959) mirror to target wikidata entryEdit

• said to be the same as (P460) and permanent duplicated item (P2959) are used to represent the concept of same as or concepts that are identical, so when for example someone added Q12345 as a P460/P2959 to Q24680, then there should be a mechanism to automatically add Q24680 as P460/P2959 back to Q12345.
• Because items stated as P460/P2959 are supposed to be same as each other, I think it would make sense if the function of the template Template:Interwiki extra (Q21286810) are to be automatically applied onto all the entry with this property.

C933103 (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

## Video game genreEdit

I have questions about science fiction video game (Q27670585) and fantasy video game (Q42409239). Both of these are listed as instances of video game genre (Q659563). However, video game genres are supposed to be all about different types of gameplay, not setting. Is there a better thing that these should be sub-classes or instances of? Could someone clear this up for us? Thanks. 09:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: Category:Video games by theme (Q6849492) contains both Category:Fantasy video games (Q7801174) and Category:Science fiction video games (Q6339113) as sub-subcategories, so I'd welcome an item for "video game theme".

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games Mahir256 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good interim solution. However, what should "video game theme" be a child/instance of? I don't know how to set this up. 06:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with genre, in general, is that it doesn't have any specific meaning or standard rules. It's really just another word for category, and is quite ambiguous. My view is that we have too many genre items for creative works, but not enough more specific properties. I don't know why we have many different science fiction (Q24925) items, such as science fiction film (Q471839), science fiction comics (Q1782964), et al. I have never seen this done this way elsewhere, and it makes no sense to me. science fiction (Q24925) is science fiction (Q24925) regardless of the medium. Danrok (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I have my own ideas about genre. They will probably never get implemented here. I think there are four main types of video game genre:
• gameplay (shooter, RPG, beat 'em up, etc.)
• setting (historical, science fiction, fantasy, modern/contemporary, etc.)
• dramatic (comedy, tragedy, mystery, etc.)
• purpose (advergame, serious game, educational game, etc.)
I also think you can combine these into nearly any combination you want. (role-playing shooter, dramedy, science fantasy, etc.)
But, I will continue to monitor this discussion to see what the rest of you think. 06:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: All values of genre (P136) are required to be instances of genre (Q483394), or instances of one of its subclasses. We could have subclasses of genre (Q483394) be for gameplay/setting/dramatic/purpose categories, and each individual "genre" being an instance of one of those and used as a genre (P136) value. Perhaps there should also be a more general class for "genre of video games", as a superclass for video game genre (Q659563), video game theme (Q42907216), etc. and a subclass of genre (Q483394). --Yair rand (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be a big change affecting a lot of projects, so we would need their feedback too. 23:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## theological concepts and interpretations of quantum mechanicsEdit

As a beginner in Wikidata, I tend to have all kinds of stupid questions. Today I found a couple more and I'd appreciate if someone else would answer them. Both emerged when I tried to classify Berkeleian interpretation (Q3800537). First, I looked into all the interpretations we have (there seems to be the usual mess across different Wikipedias) and stumbled on the theological interpretation (canon law) (Q6056448) which had no instances or statements. I'm not a native speaker of English, so I have no idea how someone else might classify it, but I would say that unless there would be a class of concepts of canon law (which I haven't found), it should be an instance of both legal concept (which I inserted, Q2135465) and theological concept (which doesn't seem to exist). So, should I create an item for the theological concepts/concepts in theology/whatever you name it (I don't have the feel of the naming habits here yet) or would that be somehow superfluous and should be solved by some other way? There also does not seem to be a separate item for the concepts in logic which in some cases in philosophical logic, I suspect, some people would claim would perhaps not fit best under mathematical concepts (e.g. interpretation in model theory, Q17101792). Should there be one? Second, I finally managed to find the "interpretations of quantum mechanics" (Q899137) but it only had one actual interpretation referring to it, many-worlds interpretation (Q40590). That one used the "subclass of" property (P279) to link to the Q899137, so I imitated it in the Berkeleian interpretation and Copenhagen interpretation (Q46079) as well. Yet later I started to wonder whether that was correct or had I just propagated a mistake. I mean, all particular interpretations are named in singular, which in my mind would hint at them being singular items, not subclasses. So, how should the relation be defined? And last but not least, what should the "interpretations of quantum mechanics" (Q899137) itself be instance of? --Oop (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a tough one. Here a few thoughts, but also the reminder that there is no single right answer, and also that many answers are not necessarily wrong. We are talking about identity of abstract objects here, and this is known to be a hard problem for ontology in general, and also a woefully underexplored one (see for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the topic of [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sortals/#SortForAbstObje Sortals for abstract concepts).
It certainly makes sense to regard the Copenhagen interpretation (Q46079) as an instance of the "interpretations of quantum mechanics" (Q899137), and thus make all such interpretations instances of the latter. This has the great advantage that one can ask a query engine for all instances of interpretations, and thus get all the results back.
Now one issue is that complex abstract concepts like the Copenhagen interpretation are often actually not a single abstract entity. In fact, there might be interpretations that are "subinterpretations" of the Copenhagen interpretation, or that have historically developed from it. Such a subinterpretation would make a lot of sense to also mark an instance of the Copenhagen interpretation? But alas, we already said that the Copenhagen interpretation is an instance of the QM interpretations. This would thus require to make the Copenhagen interpretation a subclass of the QM interpretations. But if we then remove it from the instances - because things surely shouldn't be instances and subclasses of one thing at the same time - our original query will break! Also, what does this even supposed to mean?
So, one way to regard this is to use only the subclass of relation between them, and to regard the actual instances as "the understanding of that interpretation in the head of a single scientist at a specific time". We wouldn't have items of those in Wikidata, usually. But if we regard this to be the instances, then we have a pretty workable model for why we would be using "subclass of" to connect the articles about the interpretations. These articles are all types for the understandings in the scientists heads.
In the end, what is more important than getting it right - because, as said, there is no single right or wrong - is to gain a shared understanding of the domain and formalize that. We want to be able to answer specific queries, and for that, the data needs to be structured in a specific way. So what we should do is, if we get into a murky area like this, and there starts to be some prolonged discussions about it, to agree on the use cases we want to answer, consider how these can be turned into queries, and then edit the data accordingly. If there is no discussion, we can, as we do in many cases, just go ahead and do what feels right, but sometimes this won't work out, and then we need some way to get to an agreement.
Instance of and subclass of lend to particularly vicious discussions. We should all consider more humility in discussing those, and realize that most of it is happening in our head. We should find models and that are useful and that we agree on in order to solve our tasks at hand - because it is easy to argue one way or the other, and both of them can be right. But we want to get through Wikidata with the minimal ontological commitment necessary to get our job done, so that we can work on more issues together.
If it turns out to be insufficient, because a new use case shows up, the beauty of Wikidata is that, unlike natural language text, it is often much easier to write a few queries and a few bots and get a situation fixed again.
I hope this wasn't too much preaching. Cheers, --Denny (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
(Long time, no see; please pass my regards to Q.) Concerning purely Wikidata, I'd say it might be often best to take a pragmatist approach, as all the questions need answers that work, and that in turn comes often down to just having an agreement how to solve a particular problem. From purely metaphysical point of view, perhaps one deeply non-Platonist approach would be to say there is even no essential difference between subclasses and instances, because they're both just ways of describing a certain relation between entities, and the description is mostly in our head(s) - as, also, is quite often the separation of entities. But we probably need some kind of difference to make the practical system work. So, I can keep using the subclassing for the qm interpretations and if someone feels an overwhelming urge to improve their searchability, they can turn subclasses into instances. Still no clue about canon law and instancing Q899137 itself, though. I mean, I could make every uninstanced term in physics a "concept" of some kind, but I doubt that's what is the actual practice here. More preaching, please. --Oop (talk) 09:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I would prefer using subclass of (P279) at this point. I think that's more in line with the subclass/instanceOf distinction that we set as norms with our constraints. ChristianKl (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There is one major difference between subclassing and instance of, which is in the formalization, and that difference has a major effect in how to use it: subclass of is usually regarded as transitive - and in many Wikidata queries this is represented by the * on P279 - whereas instance of is not (but instance of is transitive over subclass of). And that difference is worth preserving, but it only appears in actual queries (which is why I was pointing out that we need to write down the queries we want to have answered).
If we think that both instance of and subclass of are the same, we run into the classical problem of "Fred is a bald eagle, bald eagle is an endangered species, therefore Fred is an endangered species". By keeping the P31 and P279 carefully separated, we are avoiding this problem, as Fred is an instance of bald eagle, bald eagle is an instance of endangered species, but a subclass of bird. Therefore we could infer that Fred is a bird, but not an endangered species anymore.
For abstract concepts, as said, it is slightly different, because the question of identity is very different. Unless we can tie identity of abstract concepts to something, we are running in the problem that the differentiation between subclass of and instance of is hard, because we actually do not know what our entities with identity are. I hope that makes any sense. --Denny (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Though (whether for more or less abstract concepts) I believe, as I have stated elsewhere, that our choice for these relationships helps to more precisely define the meaning we are associating with their wikidata items, rather than being a matter of some absolute truth. If Copenhagen interpretation (Q46079) instance of (P31) interpretations of quantum mechanics (Q899137) that says something different about what interpretations of quantum mechanics (Q899137) means than Copenhagen interpretation (Q46079) subclass of (P279) interpretations of quantum mechanics (Q899137). Both may be justifiable, but in the first case "interpretations" represents a grouping of theoretical outlooks on the physical universe, while in the second case "interpretations" is more representing the action of interpreting. And in turn that difference in meaning should weigh into the P31 and P279 relationships that interpretations of quantum mechanics (Q899137) is given (it has neither at the moment, but it probably should be an instance or a subclass of physical theory (Q9357058) (or one of its subclasses)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is often the case when doing ontological work. We are pinning down the exact meaning of the item. It is a bit problematic though, because we usually do not create the items for the other meanings, and we are, at the same time, rather cavalier about where exactly the statements are, and prefer them on a single item instead of spread out on a number of items with very closely related meanings. I am not saying that this is bad - I really am not, it might be actually the only way that this can work, who knows? A little bit of conflation can go a long way. --Denny (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Denny: While the initial draft of Wikidata included the idea of being agnostic about a lot of ontological issues, the adoption of constraints means that even if we make some expection to the constraints we have a developing standard of what we mean with subclass/instance. Given the dynamics it feels to me like we will settle sooner or later on mainly using the subclass relationship to specify how abstract classes relate to each other. ChristianKl (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe. I rather like to think that queries will be the great unifier and force us to have more conformity throughout the knowledge base. And constraints can often be regarded as a special case for queries. Insofar, and this I anticipated, we will slowly make more and more commitments. But what I think is important is to not make them prematurely, but when needed. --Denny (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
A person who writes a query doesn't have necessarily the power to change around a huge amount of how items are classified. On the other hand, if we decide on specific constraints, then enforcing those constraints works as a community process. ChristianKl () 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

As explained at mw:Manual:Nofollow, for many years MediaWiki on Wikimedia wikis has added the "nofollow" attribute to external links (except some whitelisted targets) in the hope to reduce the incentive for link spammers. Some months ago I noticed the external links are not treated consistently in Wikidata, namely the external links from the identifiers section are treated like internal links: phabricator:T175230. I've not had any comment yet.

I suspect some users may not be aware that, unlike adding a normal external link, an identifier donates a dofollow link (i.e. presumably pagerank) to the target website, which can e.g. be a for-profit. I'm not sure it's ok for a non-profit commons like Wikidata to donate valuables to for-profits. I also wonder whether this configuration mistake has already been exploited by some spammers who noticed it, or has otherwise encouraged spam on this wiki. --Nemo 12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• It might be a reason why we get so many marginally useful "do-it-yourself" identifiers.
--- Jura 13:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• I don't think there's a problem in principle with setting dofollow links and I don't think it should be thought of as a donation. It's a variable that Google can use to know that a given resource is a valuable reference. When it comes to external-ids we make a decision whether a given link is welcome in our project when creating the property. If we create a external-id property for www.TheBestReferenceEver.com/\$1 and there's no problem with creating an incentive for the owners of TheBestReferenceEver to do the work of creating a bot that enters statements for relevant items. Such a bot isn't spamming but providing a valuable service.
From a SEO perspective I however think it dilutes the values of the links we do set to internal Wikimedia project and thus it might be reasonable to set "formatter urls" as non-follow. ChristianKl (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• It's also worth noting that while EnWikipedia pages have high pagerank and thus dofollow links matter a significant amount the same isn't true for Wikidata pages. ChristianKl (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Excessive and gratuitous use of `nofollow` is contray to the spirint of the web and an evil to be avoided. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
• +1 instead of passive-aggressive methods to "discourage" external links, maybe some link curation would add to quality. but clearly there is at least one admin who would rather edit war with every ip, and filter every librarian, than engage in collaboration. time to rethink and reconsider. Slowking4 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• I agree, but how would you apply "link curation" to the case of identifiers? Once an identifier property is approved, it's not like you can prevent people from using it. An identifier link is goes towards comprehensiveness, not relevance: if we strive for link quality, therefore, identifier links are worth a nofollow even more than the other links, which are supposed to be curated as you say. --Nemo 13:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
• Could you give examples where you feel there's a problem with identifier links, where you agree with an identifier link existing but disagree with it existing in a particular case? ChristianKl () 14:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## Min, average and max values for the same propertyEdit

Hello everyone,

We were talking on the French Bistro about how to fill some elements (like the speed (P2052) of Saturn (Q193)) that have data available for, for example, minimal (lower bound (Q21067468)), maximal (upper bound (Q21067467)) or even average (Q202785) values of the same property. For the need of an example, I used as (P794) for the mean speed of Saturn (Q193) around the Sun, but the property seems deprecated for most uses.

With so much uncertainties, it has been suggested by Tubezlob we expand the debate here in order to "unify and set in stone the way to specify a maximum, minimum or mean" value for the sake of internal consistency and to facilitate external uses (especially inside infoboxes)."

So how do you think we should do it? :) J. N. Squire (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a perfect example where "as" is appropriate. Amqui (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes determination method (P459) is used, e.g. on Müggelsee (Q694789). --Pasleim (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Saturn moves more slowly when it is further away from the sun in its elliptical orbit and speeds up nearer the sun. For an example of what to do see 4 Vesta, an asteroid whose apparent magnitude varies as seen from earth. The entry has both minimum and maximum magnitude values, qualified with the items minimum and maximum. You have already qualified the mean speed as average. Also qualify Saturn's speed as orbital speed. I understand the property proposal for average orbital speed was turned down with the suggestion to "use speed (P2052) with qualifier of (P642)=orbital speed (Q200924)". StarryGrandma (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Instead of average (Q202785) may be to use mean (Q2796622)? --Infovarius (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• @J. N. Squire, Amqui: Please, please, please don't use as (P794). It's untranslatable and I'm working hard to deprecate all use cases of it. What you mean here should be covered by determination method (P459) and object has role (P3831). Deryck Chan (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Determination method: Maximum? It doesn't make any sense. Determination method is for "how a value was determined". The right answer would be "satellite imagery", "topographic map", a "survey", I don't know, but not maximum. Object has role: Maximum? A measurement is not an "object"... Maybe we need more properties: Maximum speed, Maximum width... That would solve that, but I would prefer keeping the same property and finding a more proper qualifier. Amqui (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was informed about this by @Doc James: We now have a property defined daily dose (P4250) for "Defined Daily Dose" (defined item is defined daily dose (Q1182681)), which you can observe in use for amoxicillin anhydrous (Q201928). He wants to import a few thousand of these now, which is good, but I think this is a wrong property. Since the DDD is its own "thing" but is now a sub-website of the WHO Collaborating Centres (Q7950347), it should be an external reference like any other external ID. Perhaps the actual <number> in <units> should go into a generic "Dosage" property for age/bodyweight with this DDD as the reference for the generic "70 kg male dosage". I see parallels with how we use inventory number (P217) for inventory number (which by the way, I think is much less likely to get vandalized than the DDD). I think the value of external IDs is that you can include the formatter url so if the url for J01CA04 changes you only need to change it once. Doc James wants to upload 1000's of DDDs but how should he watchlist the changes? I suggested a listeria list with just the url and dose and then he can replicate the list in userspace on all wikipedias and ask his network of doctors to watchlist those. He wants an email alert if a value is changed on Wikidata. Is this possible? Jane023 (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jane023 I am not sure the benefit of have the DDD be a url for a website (if that is what you are proposing)?
Yes advice on how to watchlist is appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
No I totally get that you want to be able to have this key amount in the basic query as could be used in e.g. an infobox on Wikipedia. My concern is about using the full url as a reference. I am thinking maybe you need a two-step process - one ID in external ids (maybe as part of a larger external id family for sub-websites of the WHO Collaborating Centres (Q7950347)?), and the other in the "normal" statements section. Also you will need to request a bot anyway to upload units as they can't be uploaded with quick statements. Jane023 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if I understand what you are saying correctly, but if you are talking about the code then it seems like it is an ATC code given under Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System (Q192093). As far as I understand, that is something entirely different from DDD so I am not sure about what User:Jane023 you are trying to say.C933103 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@C933103: My point is that if you make a property for something supported on an external website, then it should be treated like an external identifier with a formatter URL (P1630), which both makes updates to urls easier AND it makes checking individual values easier. You seem to be objecting to the way defined daily dose (Q1182681) is defined. You can discuss that with James. Jane023 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

## Proposed change to WD:N regarding Commons categoriesEdit

d:Wikidata:Notability currently contains the following regarding Commons categories:

• An item with only a sitelink to a category page in Wikimedia Commons is not allowed on main article items. However, it is allowed to link Wikimedia Commons categories with categories in other Wikimedia sites in items.

I believe this is unhelpful. As I understand it, the original intention of this clause was based on the idea that in general Wikidata items should reflect "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entities", and therefore to exclude main items that correspond to Commons categories that reflect intersections of such entities.

If that is the intention, I believe it would be better to say so directly, eg:

• An item may be site-linked to a Commons category, but such items should only be created if they relate to a distinct identifiable conceptual or material entity. Items should not be created for Commons categories that can be described as an intersection of existing entities.
A Commons category should sitelink to a category-type item on Wikidata if such a category item exists; but if such a category-type item does not exist, it is acceptable for a Commons category to be sitelinked to an article-type item.

This would make much clearer that sitelinks to Commons categories are welcome. In fact, it is a current urgent priority to identify as many of the entities behind Commons categories with Wikidata items as possible, to prepare the way for Structured Data on Commons: in order for information to be described by the Structured Data project, it has to have a corresponding entity on Wikidata -- it is important that those entities exist, and WD:N should be positive about creating them.

As for the second sentence above, there seemed to be support for it as a proposition in the threads last month on both Commons Village Pump and Wikidata Project Chat examining the most recent numbers on links between Commons and Wikidata. It essentially is a reflection of current reality: there are now over 120,000 more Commons categories linked to article-type items than category-type items here (539,071 vs 412,231), a trend which has been steadily increasing; and many more Commons categories which could be so linked. Such sitelinking makes templates work better and more efficiently; it also means interwiki links can be migrated to Wikidata; it is also more stable, because if pages get merged or split the sitelinks automatically move too. It's also a reflection that there is really no desire or value or point in creating a category item here, if its only function is to point to an article item: better (more reliable, less indirect, less potential for approximation fuzziness) to link to the relevant article item directly.

WD:N currently references the 2013 discussion on Commons links as justification for the current text. That discussion was never really very satisfactory. The outcome selected was not the one the heaviest majority of participants supported; it never had buy-in from Commons; and it is not the path that has ultimately been followed in practice. For that, and for the arguments above, I believe it would now be better to mark that discussion as `{{Historical}}`, remove reference to it, and move on. We're in a far better position now that we were in 2013 to assess the reality of the options and their consequences.

Proposed. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

•   Question Reads good in general, but I am concerned about Commons’s notability criteria. I do not have much experience with that project, but my impression is that it is much easier to permanently have promotional media files and thus a category over there than it is in any other Wikimedia project (including Wikidata). How does the Commons community make sure that this wouldn’t be a simple path to secure a promotional item at Wikidata as well? —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it (others may correct me), Commons’s notability criteria is intentionally weak. If private entities want to release free photographs about themselves, Commons basically sees that as a good thing. For that media to be classifiable and searchable by the Structured Data system, it would require items here to hold the relevant information. If as Wikidata we do not wish this, the best way might be to attach a rider in a footnote to the clause above, excluding a list of certain limited types of entity -- eg individual Commons users not otherwise notable -- if we want to do that. Jheald (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• An example of how category are created in wikimedia commons is that, I have seen many aircraft registration category, where aircraft photo files are categorized by their registration number, so most of those individual aircrafts have their own registration number. If the aircraft changed hand or changed registration number in its life there might even be more categories. Given the sheer amount of aircrafts flying on the sky now and most of these aircraft went from freshly manufactured to retired uneventfully, I believe they aren't likely to be qualified as notable in most language variants wikipedia. Will these be qualified to create an item in wikidata? C933103 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably we should ping c:Commons:WikiProject Aviation to see if they have thoughts or comments on this question.
c:Commons:WikiProject Aviation notified, at c:Commons_talk:WikiProject_Aviation#Wikidata_items_for_individual_registrations Jheald (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What is true is that c:Category:Aircraft by registration currently has 74,487 sub-categories, each for a particular registration.
Do these deserve entries here? I'd suggest that at least some of them do -- for example if only a small number of a particular type are preserved, it probably does make sense to have an item on each one, with details of its individual history. Similarly eg for preserved railway locomotives, and for ships (even not preserved) since they are so individual. For some historic types, eg c:Category:Avro Lancaster, it does seem that there are only very few sub-categories devoted to individual airframes. On the other hand for aircraft types in present-day or recent service, eg c:Category:Boeing_737, the number of subcategories for individual registrations is huge -- look at the counts of sub-sub-categories of c:Category:Boeing 737-300 by registration. Looking at a representative individual one of these pages, eg c:Category:B-5063_(aircraft), there is information here that might benefit from being stored in a structured way, for example: the type of the aircraft, the date it was built, its operator and dates in use with that operator, a serial number for its airframe (and hence other operators and other registration numbers it carried). I think a case might be made that this could indeed be useful to store on Wikidata, if we as the Wikidata community were prepared to permit it. At any rate it might lead to a distinct item here for each airframe. There is also the question of whether it is useful to be able to see all pictures of a particular plane, and to be able to drill down to those by registration number. If so, does the Structured Data team anticipate that that would require an item for each registration number? Or alternatively, will some detailed identifying information (like a name, for a person; or a registration number or specific identification) be held locally on the CommonsData wikibase, perhaps as a qualifier with a string value on a "depicts" statement, and do the Structured Data team anticipate that that too would be discoverable via the envisioned search/refine process? I think she's away for a few days, but @SandraF (WMF): might be able to advise.
Perhaps if we could identify examples of types of such information that it might be possible to hold with local strings on CommonsData, that might be used to create a considered list of types of entities that don't need separate items here -- the sort of exception list I was thinking about in my response to MisterSynergy above. Jheald (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• This sounded like a good plan until I realized we have a lot of subcategories in Commons:Category:Wikipedians by country. I'm afraid this would be use as a backdoor to slip all sorts of non-notable stuff into Wikidata. Opinions? Multichill (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
One question here is how easily we are going to want pictures of people like c:Category:Maarten_Dammers or c:Category:Lydia_Pintscher to be findable. I think there are at least a couple of issues here. One is name standardisation. An alternative to using depicts (P180) <some Wikidata item for the person> to describe a file in the Structured Data system might be to use a mechanism with a qualifier that was string-valued, something like depicts (P180) human (Q5) // author name string (P2093) "Maarten Dammers" (except it would just be "name string" not "author name string"). But if we're not using Wikidata items, we lose the advantages of a controlled vocabulary -- if in another photo you get tagged as "Multichill", that won't be recognised as an alias. Similarly for variants of American names, eg with an without middle initials. There would also need to be a special mechanism to search for name fragments, eg just "Dammers"; and one wouldn't necessarily be able to specify what was a surname or a first name. A second issue is that your very inclusion in c:Category:Wikimedians in the Netherlands is a representation of information to make you findable. With a Wikidata item, that can be translated to occupation (P106) Wikimedian (Q41546637), country of citizenship (P27) Netherlands (Q55) -- and one presumes that, starting from "Wikimedian" the search/refine system might be able to suggest (amongst other options) that you could be looking for instances of people with that as an occupation; then country as a refinement direction; then Netherlands as a country value; then name as a refinement direction; then Maarten Dammers as a possible name value. But if the name were held just as a string, then none of that would be possible. On the other hand the inclusion of regular people in Wikidata (not just celebrities) raises a whole new dimension of BLP, privacy and data protection issues - something I know that User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) has been quite wary of. Perhaps there could be a special ad-hoc search method for Wikipedians. But generally, to the extent that we want to make images of individuals discoverable on Structured Data by what those individuals are (currently achieved on Commons through the category hierarchy), then it seems to me that those individuals are going to need individual items. Jheald (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•   Comment I think that the proposed text may need to be a little more user friendly as "distinct identifiable conceptual or material entity" ... is well <shrug>. For this discussion, it might also be worthwhile producing some examples to better contextualise what is looking to be achieved where the language used may not be well-interpreted. Part of this discussion should also cover 1) is it expected that every category should be linked from Wikidata? If no, what categories are we looking to exclude? If yes, what categories do we see may be problematic or inflammatory to Wikidata? Examples of each would be useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•   Comment Maybe a threshold should be existence of independent references. For example people, places or taxons should have some identifiers or sources which were not created by the subject. Companies should have some sources other than company website. The sources would not need to be provided at the time of item creation, but items without independent sources should be removed. --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I am cautious about writing that into policy. For example, a building that people have photographed might not be listed as an official historic heritage object, yet may still be a distinct structure with eg a street address, geo-coordinates, architectural style, demolition date etc, all of which one might want to record. I suspect that, particularly for a building, if it is distinct and distinctive enough that people have photographed it and named a category for it (and regard it as an entity in its own right), then it is probably worth having an item for here -- and if people can source further statements about it, then so much the better. Jheald (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
•   Comment There are two points to the proposal. The first is that Commons should be able to rely on Wikidata for providing its interlanguage links, and to provide information for templates, without concern that somebody will delete a "category" link from an "article" item, on the misguided idea that this is against Wikidata policy. I haven't seen this happen for quite a while, and its seems that it's not something that's argued about anymore. There was a second RFC that also led to no conclusion: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Category commons P373 and "Other sites". There shouldn't be a notability problem in these cases, because items with interlanguage links should always have site links to other projects. The second point would be whether new items can be created on Wikidata for Commons categories. This may be a possible requirement for the structured data project, since it seems structured data won't give Commons a facility to create private items of its own. If a Commons category is to be replaced by a link to multilingual Wikidata item, the item will need to be created on Wikidata. Ghouston (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• But then, how about if another mediawiki projects with equally weak notability requirement emerges? For example if meta:NonFreeWiki become a reality and then all the commons category are duplicated to it, there will need to be some form of link between them. Could wikidata provide such a link in cases like this?C933103 (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Another apparently large category tree in commons: commons:Category:Categories by camera C933103 (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I   Support the change. Especially with the planned integration. ChristianKl () 01:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

## Use cases for no valueEdit

What do you think, is it appropriate to use the "no value" for statements, that could eventually be filled with custom values? E.g. for a living person, there is no value for date of death (P570), but at some time there could be one. --MB-one (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Better use "no value" only when the statement can be referenced and will stay valid in foreseeable time. -- JakobVoss (talk)
For a living person you can use floruit (P1317) 2017 if you want to note down that they are currently alive with an appropriate source. In other cases where there's no special property and you want to state that an organisation still exists I think it's oaky to use "no value" even if the organisation could get disolved in the future. ChristianKl (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Living people shouldn't have P570. For immortals, P570=no value seems fine.
--- Jura 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Where it is factual. Forcing a "no value" would actually apply a date of death which is incorrect. Having no date of death is the only means to determine someone is living, there is no other system means to do that. We also use "no value" where we have done authority identifier checks and find no value exists; note that it is required to qualify that with retrieved (P813).

On a similar note, do not apply "unknown value" just because you don't know it. It is quite problematic when people systematically apply selected vague dates of birth/death as they flow through the system, AND it doesn't allow those empty values to be researched as they are already filled with what equates to junk data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am currently adding "no values" regularly for the Thai monuments. About half of the registered Thai historic site (Q16438244) have been officially announced in the Royal Thai Government Gazette (Q869928) and becoming effective by the date of publication, but the other half is also included in the database by the Fine Arts Department (Q1416884) and have a Thai cultural heritage ID (P1626) already. Thus for those I set start time (P580) to "No value". Ahoerstemeier (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1::As of now, there's no way to determine if a person is currently living, or if the date of death (P570) isn't set yet. Hence, I would propose the use of "no value" to indicate that, there is indeed no date of death, because the person is currently alive. More generally speaking, creating information by omitting information, doesn't seem to be a sensible approach to me. --MB-one (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
How would you reference such a statement? What happens when someone uses the most recent rdf dump (that is slightly outdated)?
--- Jura 12:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@MB-one: see above.
--- Jura 10:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@MB-one: I respectfully disagree. Starting to push a "no value" for an open end date doesn't seem to be a good practice. If we start that on death dates, every other qualifier for end date is problematic.

No date of death usually would mean living, or data missing. There are means to manage missing death dates where obviously dead (immortals aside). At English Wikisource, where no death date, we calculate up to 120 years max. age for living, and label accordingly. Forcing a no value, gives death date a value, and makes it harder to find missing values.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: How would this make it any harder to find missing values? If anything it would make it easier, by excluding living people from the list of items, potentially missing date of death (P570). And yes, this does technically apply for all end date properties. --MB-one (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If date of death (P570) is not known use "unknown value" . If the person is immortal (like Captain Jack Harkness (Q561140)) use "no value". Otherwise don't add date of death (P570). --Succu (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Beta label editor's problem.Edit

I was trying to edit a Traditional Chinese entry with the beta label editor by typing in the language code zh-Hant, however it rejected me by saying no such lang code, and it only accept me when I type zh-hant instead. However, per IETF standard, zh-Hant is the preferred way to capitalize such a code. Can that be fixed for the beta editor?C933103 (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think we don't have any capitalized language codes in Wikidata. So if that is wrong, Wikidata is what should be fixed. Perhaps there were some discussions in the past... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## Marital statusEdit

Following a twitter conversation about the use of "NoValue" statements in spouse (P26) to indicate "not currently married"; and also noting that this issue has been been raised before on Project Chat regarding an edit war on Franz Kafka; I was wondering:
Is there value in a "Marital Status" property, corresponding to the item marital status (Q1282093)?
Both for Privacy and Notability reasons, it might be very useful to be able to state that a person is married (or divorced, etc.) without having to ALSO have an item for their spouse. This is not dissimilar to number of children (P1971) in that regard. Also, it appears (via both examples linked above) that we are sometimes using spouse (P26) as a stand-in for being able to query marital status. I believe the only way you can currently ask for "is this person married" is to query for a Spouse statement that does not have an end date and/or has a "preferred rank" (if they've been married more than once). This also implies that a Spouse->NoValue statement needs to be added for any period before first marriage, between any other marriages, and after a divorce. Furthermore, number of children (P1971) (and also unmarried partner (P451) only covers the relationship in a true/false sense and doesn't cover many other related types of status, including: betrothed, engaged, married, divorced, de-facto, civil union, widowed... "Marital status" (also sometimes called civil status) seems to be is a relatively common type of 'vital statistic' that is frequently stated in everything from government forms to trashy magazines. What do you think? Wittylama (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

[Pinging the people who were involved the previous discussion: Matěj Suchánek, Pigsonthewing, Vrenak, Koxinga, ChristianKl, Jura1, VIGNERON etc. :-) Wittylama (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• If you don't want to create an item for the spouse, you could use "somevalue". Personally, I only add "novalue" in P26 to people with P570.
--- Jura 12:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure.
One thing for sure, according to Wikidata:Notability there is no problem of notability (qv. mainly point 3 some structural need and partially point 2 too). And as all data in Wikidata are supposed to have publicly available references, I guess privacy shouldn't be much of an issue either.
Meanwhile, I am concerned about the creation of item just for the sake of fulfilling structural need. If we push this logic to its end, we should have items about all peoples that have existed (or at least all we have sources, does civil registry count as a sources? if so, all people born, married or died in France for the last 2 century should have an item, that several hundreds of millions of people).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
For people who were married to one of the persons on this list, I think there is a structural need.
--- Jura 13:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Creating an item for the Spouse of a Notable person is allowed because of the "structural need" rule, but that should not be required merely to be able to state the fact that the Notable person is married. In exactly the same way that we should not have to create items for their children to be able to say they have kids (c.f. number of children (P1971)). Wittylama (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Our notability guidelines say that the structual need of linking a person via the "spouse" category makes them notable.
I don't think that there's a rule that causes us to have all items that qualify under our notability guidelines. Notability just means that we don't delete an item when somebody created it. When it comes to creating millions of items in bulk that needs a bot request and the corresponding discussion.
As far as I'm concerned "Spouse->NoValue" means that the person isn't married. "Spouse->UnknownValue" means that the person is married but Wikidata doesn't know who the spouse happens to be. ChristianKl (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Using unusual variations of the Spouse property in order to clarify that the person is/isn't/was married seems to me to be a clever hack. It also doesn't account for things like "engaged" which is quite important info for things like modelling royal families (and could be qualified with "to -> Qitem"). Wittylama (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not a hack, it's the core idea of what "NoValue" is supposed to do.
If you want model engagement you can currently do it with unmarried partner (P451) or significant person (P3342) and qualify it appropriately. It's a statement with one qualifier in the same way that having "martial status" "engaged" with a "to -> X" qualifier would work. The complexity would be the same. ChristianKl (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Unmarried Partner is indeed a good (indeed - preferable) way to link to the Qitem for the fiancee (etc). Good point, thanks. Nevertheless, I still feel that the [marital/civil] "status" ought to be able to be expressed in data without necessarily requiring a Spouse property. For example - take Sean Penn (Q44221). He has three "spouse" statements (two people with start and end dates, and a "no value" with a start date the same as the second Spouse's end date); and one "umnarried partner" statement (currently without start or end dates). That is: "married twice, divorced twice, currently not married. In a stable relationship." To take this structure to its fullest, should we ALSO have a "Spouse -> no Value" for the time-period between the two Spouse dates? What about before the first one starting at birth until the first marriage? Would it not be simpler, and cleaner/neater, to indicate the Spouse(s) in one property [a list of linked names, and with their dates], and the Status in a different one [a chronological list of known civil status] - rather than trying to infer the latter from the former? Wittylama (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't see how this is a privacy issue, if the information 🛈 wasn't known then it would be original research and could be reverted as such, otherwise spousal data is already publicly available knowledge somewhere before it was placed on a Wikimedia project. I just don't see how adding less information would benefit the project. 🤔-- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 13:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The relationship to privacy was suggested in this tweet, but it is not the core point of the question, just a potentially useful side-effect. If a notable person is publicly known to be married but not to whom, then yes, we could equally well say "spouse -> UnknownValue" this is true. The point is that it seems (to me at least) to be answering the question of "is this person married?" in reverse... I would feel that the structure of the statements should be in the order: "this person is married. This is their spouse." but currently we are stating "This person has a spouse. There is no end-date. Therefore they are married". Wittylama (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Not really sure if the currently situation is optimal when trying to determine a history, but I don't think adding another property to keep in sync makes it easier.
--- Jura 14:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
In biographical dictionaries there are many examples of knowing to whom a person is married (John Doe married 1. Bertha, daughter of Sir John Bloggs; 2ly. Beatrix, daughter of Lord Farquhar) Regularly, I lack the will (or maybe the distraction) to create the person or chain of people that are referenced. With Wikidata, the problem is that I cannot reference that they were married, even when I know a name, without going through the full creation process of otherwise non-notable person. I will comment that I have seen people avoid this by using significant event (P793) to record a marriage event without the detail.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Supplementary question. @Wittylama: On Guy Ritchie (Q192990) the question was about ranking? Ranking marriages itself is an interesting concept, and preferring a marriage seems unusual. Did the conversation cover why one was or should be preferred? We can use series ordinal (P1545) to show the order of marriages rather than applying a preference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is designed to encourage the creation of items for those people and I think it's good that it's structured this way. From an usability perspective it could be easier to create the relevant items but given that Wikidata focuses on linked data you say that Bertha is the daughter of Sir John Bloggs by having items for both. ChristianKl (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Creating more anchorless and unnotable people is something that I decline to do. I don't keep up with the important tasks, let alone the nonentities. This is not a glorified family tree, there are better sites and means of managing those people and references properly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Our notability policy is specifically writting to declare those people notable through them fulfilling a structural need. I also don't see a problem with Wikidata including family trees. Most of the existing websites for family trees use unfree licenses (and that includes Wikitree). Wikidata's way of being able to specify which statements on an item are backed by which references also seems better to me than most of the other websites that list sources of a page without saying which statements are backed by which source. There's also a lot of synergy by having a database that describes humans in multiple context. If you have citiations from someone who lived in the 18th century and who used two different names, having family data can sometimes help to find out that two people are the same.
I don't see a problem when you don't put the information about "Bertha is the daughter of Sir John Bloggs" into Wikidata, but part of being a structured database means that this information would be added through new items. ChristianKl (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
•   Comment at the end of this discussion it would be really helpful to have a summary of the preferred means. If there is a difference where comment is needed, then highlighting that difference would be good. We have been less than perfect in summarising these discussions, and moving to help pages. We seem to keep expecting people to read long blown-out conversations to work out how to enter data, and some (many?) days I just want to do the data entry.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• In most cases I would expect that currently new users look at the way similar items are structured and try to follow the example. Even if we would have help pages it's hard to make them visible to a user when they would need it. ChristianKl (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I just looked at whether there's a tooltip for "No Value" and "Unknown Value". Maybe we could show an explanation of the meaning of the terms as a tooltip? Do you thinkt hat would help? ChristianKl () 18:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

## Bots vs assisted editingEdit

Do we need a policy that defines the boundary between a bot and assisted editing (sometimes involving the API or pywikibot) more clearly? Wikidata:Bots sets out the policy on the use of bots and how to get approvals for bot tasks, but doesn't actually say what we consider a "bot" in the way w:Wikipedia:Bots does. Deryck Chan (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would we need a policy? What is its purpose, what should it solve and what are its risks? Only floating ideas without any justification is imho a bad thing. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
QuickStatements can do the same things as a bot. Normal edits are easily undone when someone disagrees. Undoing bots who make a lot of edits is harder and as such it worthwhile to discuss large batches of edits before they are made. I   Support writing a policy. ChristianKl (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we indeed need such a policy (or, to be exact, likely an extension of the existing policy to such edit). We also need to decide what we want to do with bots approved on the projects making edits on the projects (likely nothing, but it should be on the policy as well).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM, ChristianKl, Ymblanter: A boundary between assisted editing and bots will be useful because:

1. Editing Wikidata often involves making mass changes that involve dozens or hundreds of edits each time an editor wants to make a major change. This typically involves setting up a tool for multiple pages and committing an entire batch of edits in one go. This means that a significant proportion of work on Wikidata falls in the grey area between what other wikis define as a "manual edit" (one edit per human decision, usually through the web interface) and a "bot edit" (setting off a bot to crawl pages and edit them automatically without human attention). English Wikipedia defines the middle range as "assisted editing" and such a definition will be more useful on Wikidata than Wikipedia.
2. If an editor makes a batch of edits whose magnitude is smaller than the threshold, they will feel assured that their edits will be assessed for their merits and the editor will not be punished for "running an unauthorised bot". --Deryck Chan (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: I do not care what other Wikis define. What I care about is Wikidata. I have no interest in more regulation creep. It serves no purpose and there is no proof that it will help us achieve a better result. When I add data to Wikidata I typically do this based on information from Wikipedia, they have their error rate and I am unapologetic that errors are introduced. There is potential in improving both Wikidata and Wikipedia when we collaborate. We don't. At Wikidata we have not reached the tipping point where we have sufficient data to make a difference. Your proposal will imho be detrimental to our success. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: I'm afraid the opposite of what you worry about is also happening. Some people are discouraged from making mass edits because they feel that it would be considered bot editing. I agree we shouldn't have regulation creep - Wikimedia project policies should be as decriptive as possible. But if we have an assurance written down (not necessarily on Wikidata:Bots) that says "batch edits involving fewer than X edits to Y items over a time period of Z don't require bot flags" that will give people confidence. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Instead of writing policy, which would artificially restrict all active users from editing Wikidata, I would recommend to:

• Write and publish a tool to simplify batch undoing.
• Write a csv import special page as a part of wikibase software.
• Rewrite RecentChanges special page to show edits grouped by some kind of batch_id (QuickStatements 2 does this).

Right now manual editing Wikidata is like writing Wikipedia articles word-by-word: go to edit mode, add exactly one word, save, go again to edit mode, add exactly one word, save, etc. If somebody wants to write 1000 words (with tools, obviously), it would require requesting flooder flag for a short period of time. Where would be Wikipedia now? --Lockal (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lockal: Great ideas, particularly the one on batch undoing. Is it on the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey yet? Deryck Chan (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Support to improve clarity, legal security for everyone and to reduce disputes on what is ok and what isn't. (Rules can also increase liberty.) --Marsupium (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

## Merge sport association (Q1531833) and sports governing body (Q2485448)?Edit

Technically it would be simple to merge sport association (Q1531833) and sports governing body (Q2485448), but since there are plenty of backlinks to both items, I would like to ask the community for confirmation that those items should indeed be merged. Thanks for advice, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• I think it would be good when asking such a question to ping responsible Wikiprojects. ChristianKl (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• I tried to, but `{{Ping project|Sports}}` is not possible due to the lack of a participants list. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, I added a participant list, so hopefully people who are interested will add themselves. ChristianKl (talk) 13:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I   Support merging, there's no different in the actual organization definitions, if both are not mergeable then why we merged two former organizations to one WBSC? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
•   Support merge too to help readers of different Wikipedias find equivalent concepts in other languages. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## electoral district (P768)Edit

As long as electoral district (P768) is a qualifier how can I use it in a template like Template:Infobox officeholder (Q5830052)? Which, in Norwegian wikipedia, is collecting the value from Wikidata. Breg Pmt (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You need to use LUA if you want to use Wikidata properly in infoboxes. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thats ok for Properties, but as far as I can understand it is not possible to use Qualifiers only Properties. Ref [Jon Mannsåker https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Manns%C3%A5ker] using [Infoboks officeholder https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mal:Infoboks_person_med_verv].where Properties on wikidata are giving values to the infobox and where electoral district (P768) can not be collected from Wikidata as it is a qualifier Pmt (talk)
@Pmt: This is a known limitation of the "statements" parser function. I have raised qualifier support as a feature request at meta:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Wikidata/Further functionality for "statement" parser function. For now you'll need to use no:Modul:Wikidata to get qualifiers. Deryck Chan (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan: Thank you very much. Pmt (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## Servant of GodEdit

Can anyone merge Q27808195 and Q869974? 77.253.40.96 09:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, they should not be merged as they are two different concepts. — Ayack (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## How do I set a link between a Wikipedia article and a Wikimedia Commons category?Edit

What parameters should I use if I want to connect a media category on Wikimedia Commons with an item on Wikidata that mostly concerns Wikipedia articles? If I click on "set link 🔗" on Wikimedia Commons it requires me to make a new item, but I want to add these links to existing items. Is this wanted or is it preferred that I just continue linking the Wikimedia Commons categories on the bottom of Wikipedia articles? -- 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 12:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: See the section above titled "Proposed change to WD:N regarding Commons categories" for the current iteration of the discussion regarding what to do about these. Mahir256 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## distinction: podcast (distribution) -- podcast (program)Edit

The concept podcast medium (Q20899) has for the last years described the means of distribution. Last year I created podcast (Q24634210) a subclass of broadcasting program in analogy to radio program or television program. This conceptual distinction was introduced as a fix so that individual podcasts could be classified as an instance of a program for broadcasting rather than an instance of a technical distribution channel. Podcast has recently been modified and also made a subclass of broadcasting program. I reverted this for now. Though I did it before fully apprehending that a large number of podcasts have been in the meantime been classified as an instance of audio podcast (Q24633474) (itself a subclass of podcast as distribution). Obviously there is a problem with communicating the distinction. Likely it's the name since many will naturally think of "podcast" or "audio/video podcast" as the correct object class rather than of "podcast program".

So I wonder should the conceptual distinction be resolved by merging both concepts, distribution and transmitted content, in Q20899 (podcast)? It would be a bit like radio and radio program being just one object, but maybe it's appropriate for podcasts. If instead the conceptual distinction should be preserved, how can the difference between podcast and podcast program be better communicated?

--Toaem (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

## Edit summaries displaying the changeEdit

I didn't find anything in Phabricator or the archives, so I wonder: Has it been considered that edit summaries automatically display (part of) the content change, like so "Label X was changed from Y to Z"? Currently they only show "Label X was changed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There are lot of areas of Wikidata that provide opportunities for improvement and I think that edit summary descriptions haven't gotten that much work yet. ChristianKl () 15:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that this may be an useful proposal for the Community Wishlist Survey, to make it easier to detect vandalism and problem edits. I wanted to make sure that this hadn't already been discussed and judged impractical here, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a user script which might be of interest: put `mw.loader.load( '//www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yair_rand/DiffLists.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' ); // [[User:Yair rand/DiffLists.js]]` to Special:MyPage/common.js and have a look at your watchlist, item histories, or recent changes. The script also offers filter options. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups (Q11305696) might also be useful here. On Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets it says "Currently has no support for previews or diffs of Wikidata items or properties (pages in the main or Property: namespaces)", but recently diffs of the internal representation work. (BTW: How to update Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets?) --Marsupium (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I am guessing these system messages are the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

## Monolingual language code mn-Mong for traditional Mongolian entry in wikidata item.Edit

About 1.5 years ago, some users have requested for the creation of monolingual language code mn-Mong on phabricator phab:T137810 so that Mongolian text in Mongolian script can be entered into wikidata. However, on phabricator, User:GerardM was saying that per policy of Language Committee, that code cannot be accepted because mn is a "macrolanguage" code. (macrolanguage (Q152559). As such, I would like to put the situation into discussion in Wikidata regarding what are we going to do with the code. My personal opinion is that the code mn-Mong would be the best fit for the values that are going to be added to wikidata despite what have been stated by Language committee, and as a result I believe the optimal solution is to establish a local consensus that would override the language committee policy.C933103 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: How about mvf, given that this represents the variety spoken in Inner Mongolia and that variety is written in the Mongolian script? (If we wish to represent the variety spoken in Mongolia in the Mongolian script, we could use khk-Mong.) Mahir256 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, as far as I understand, if you write a text in the Mongolian script according to its orthography, it will be the same no matter if it is mvf or khk. In other word, if a Mong text is presented, you can't judge if it is mvf or khk. (That's what I was told by Mongolian speakers anyway)C933103 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: If that is true then why do you want mn-Mong instead of mvf? ChristianKl () 22:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
They are not distinct when written in Mongolian script, but they are distinct vocally. The mvf only represent the vocal dialect. When a khk speaker write the language in Mong, they will not say they are writing it in mvf. C933103 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The core issue is that we seem to have a policy that sees ISO-639-3 as authority for what a language happens to be. mvf is a language according to that standard. Would it work for you as a compromize to create that language? ChristianKl () 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it is that, spoken language =/= written language, therefore while putting mvf, khk separately could arguably make sense in term of the spoken language, and also the classification would make sense when writing with latin or cyrillic alphabets that are more strictly phonetical representation of those variants, however it does not make sense when writing with Mongolian script.
Then about "compromise". I cannot speak for Mongolian community but my understanding is that it would defeat the purpose that Mongolian written in Mongolian text is supposed to be beyond the boundary of individual Mongolian subgroup. To khk speakers, the coding could also seems like giving away Mong to China, and alienating the community from the script.C933103 (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Somehow the process for new monolingual strings isn't really working out. Even fairly trivial creations can take langcom months to assess and can take a year to implement (samples: fr-ca in phab:T151186, nrf-je in phab:T165648). It seems it's not entirely clear what langcom is meant to do in relation to Wikidata. Requests for new Wikipedia's get confused with requests for monolingual strings per Help:Monolingual_text_languages#Requirements_for_a_new_language_code. For mn-Mong phab:T137810 includes a Wikidata assessment by Nikki. It seems to me that should be sufficient.
--- Jura 07:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No. There is no room for abusing standards. The language policies are fixed because the Wikipedia experience showed the fallacy of having "consensus" determined codes. We still suffer the consequences because there is no process to undo the damage. The process of adding codes to Wikidata must conform to the ISO-639 standard. The problem with the flood of codes for Wikidata is that there is too much of them and no thought on what to use it for. At this moment it is used for text only fields. So when there it is about languages that is only spoken, by definition the use of such codes are problematic. I have asked at previous request for an argument for the codes, I did not get it and as far as I am concerned there are too many requests and the case for their creation is not made. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the standard Wikidata is using. Aren't you again confusing Wikipedia with Wikidata.
--- Jura 07:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That is immaterial. There is only one language policy and it is valid for any and all Wikimedia projects. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
--- Jura 08:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Can you?
--- Jura 08:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• @GerardM: What's the problem with IETF language tags? ChristianKl () 16:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• What damage are you speaking about? The existing of simple wikipedia? I don't see any problem with it existing. If you refer to other problems, is there a page that lists them? ChristianKl () 16:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

### Monolingual language code creation processEdit

• Wikidata seems to use language codes not only to talk about languages but also to talk about dialects. GerardM seems to have decided in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186#2916575 against having en-US as dialect within Wikidata. The next time the request for an opinion on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T154589 was ignored. At https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186 there's another request. I can understand that the jurisdiction for deciding which new Wiki's are supposed to be oppened is at the language committee but I don't really see why the jurisdiction for Wikidata languages/dialects shouldn't made inside our community but outsourced to the committee. ChristianKl () 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• It could be good to have a group of users interested in these questions reviewing them, but they'd need to collaborate with Wikidata. Currently I don't really see this happening. At some point, we got the explanation that the committee lost interest in reviewing these requests.
• No explication is given why phab:T151186 took 4 months for an opinion and no explicit approval was given. The result was that this simple request took almost a year.
• At phab:T165648, the request seems to be taken hostage by the language committee because there is some disagreement about a related language code currently used by a project grouping several languages. The language codes requests are considered correct by everyone involved and no other code is used at WMF for the same. There is no technical problem to use the code at Wikidata for monolingual strings.
• Given that the Wikidata approach works fairly well for creating databases and Wikidata administrators are fairly proficient in building things that way, maybe Wikidata administrators would be a better group to review these requests. We do need a group that is interested in reviewing these requests and collaborates with Wikidata.
--- Jura 08:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Processwise we could do it similar to property creation. We can have one WikiProject that gets pinged, so people who are interested in preventing abuse of codes can voice their opinion. If the process would be successful, instead of creating a new property the admin/property creator could write a phabricator ticket that links to the language tag creation proposal.
@LydiaPintscher, GerardM: Would any of you have a problem with switching our process in this way? ChristianKl () 12:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
From my side what I need is some confirmation that the language code we are adding isn't bogus/wrong/... because I don't have the necessary knowledge and time to judge this. So if this process leads to that I am fine with it. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The process for properties is broken; it happens all too regular that properties are deleted. At a time adding languages was a community process and that was a failure. It is still not possible to undo the damage. We are not bringing a community process back for Wikidata. When monolingual codes were introduced, I was in favour of this. As it was discussed at the time. When the content for a code is wrong all its content is to be deleted. The idea is that this is to help not hinder.
The problem with many of the later Wikidata codes is that no reason is given for their creation. The fact that these codes are introduced regardless sets them up for failure and deletion. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Given the feedback of Lydia, what do the other Wikidata users think that were involved in these requests that took months to complete or are still open (fr-ca, nrf-je mn-Mong). This would only concern codes for monolingual strings at Wikidata (Help:Monolingual text languages), not creations of new Wikipedia sites. @Laddo, VIGNERON, Fralambert, Mbch331, Verdy_p, Nikki:
--- Jura 06:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Jura1: Given the recent Community Wishlist discussion, why not add en-US to the mix? ChristianKl () 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of an actual code request for en-us (phab ticket). Personally, I just mentioned these three codes in my previous comments.
--- Jura 13:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• @GerardM: Given that you were till now either unwilling or unable to provide any examples of harm, I'm not sure why I should put much stock into your argument. It also makes me question to what extend the language committee is well equipped for their task when they don't maintain easily sharable lists of problems that they see. ChristianKl () 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I can't judge if language codes are valid or not. I'm only involved because I know how to add them to the code. If languages are accepted it's easy for me to make a patch. Mbch331 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

### mn-Mong (cont)Edit

• There is no inherent problem with en-US, the same is true for Australian English. There is one big problem. It is that liberties are taken with the meaning of the codes. A great example is when macro codes are used in combination with other codes like with Mongolian. What I find is that many codes are asked to be recognised without any argument why they are requested. There is no point in asking for a code for a language that is not written for instance. The point of the language policy is that the codes are used in the way they are meant to be used. We are still suffering the consequences from the abuse we have seen in the past. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think it would great if there's documentation of "suffering the consequences from the abuse we have seen in the past". Documenting the problems might help with increasing their visiblity, which inturn helps with solving them.
When it comes to this Mongolian example it seems to me that if we would use ISO-639 codes, then we have to give two language with distinct verbal expression but a shared written language different codes. Given that our project only uses the written language I don't see why this would be a problem. ChristianKl () 12:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a problem that "we" give a code that is external to us a meaning it does not have. Your notion of language is at odds with the standards. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by giving it the meaning that it does not have? The combination have already been registered on IANA Language subtag registry, and French Wikipedia have already been using Module:mn-Mong for a number of things already. C933103 (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Why does it matter what the French Wikipedia does. It is wrong and not acceptable. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
More relevant is that Amir Aharoni wants all the language codes to be merged. This makes these often arbitrary request even more dangerous. There are plenty of codes that are fine but codes like mn-Mong are not acceptable not only because of the inclusion of an ambiguous code but also because it is given a meaning it does not have. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Where have you seen that "mn-Mong" is wrong ? It does not indicate the country (irrelevant here) but the traditional Mongolian script (traditionally written vertically) used for the Mongolian language (modern Mongolian generally uses Cyrillic in Mongolia, but in China it uses now sinograms; the traditional script was used in what is now in Mongolia, part of Russia, and part of China: "mn-Mong" is valid in the three countries and refers to this orthograghy. "mn-MN" would likely be written now only in Cyrillic but would be only the more standard modern use in Mongolia, where "mn-Cyrl" may be used also in Russia and China for the same Cyrillic version. "mn-CN" would likely be written now only in simplified sinograms but would be only the more standard modern use in China, where "mn-Hans" would be used in the 3 countries without ambiguity.
In general we should avoid language codes using ISO3166-1 country/territory extension: languages are better encoded using ISO 15924 script codes, or variant codes for regional dialects.
So "mn-Mong" is far better than "mn-MN" (not needed: use "mn" instead and preferably use the cyrillic script only), "mn-CN" (use "mn-Hans" instead), "mn-RU" (use "mn" instead and only the cyrillic script). "mn-Cyrl" is not needed for Mongalian names in Russia or Mongolia (use "mn" directly) but "mn-Cyrl" could be useful in for names used in China. "mn-Latn" would also be useful to show romanizations (preferably from the Mongolian script if available, otherwise from the cyrillic version, otherwise from the sinographic version). There may be also useful cases for "mn-Hant" (traditional sinograms, used for historical name in the Inner Mongolian region of today's China before its invasion by Han imperial armies, but also previously when Mongols where invading today's northeastern China). But there are certainly regional variants of Mongolian which may also be written in several scripts.
Note: all these variants are not needed for the creation of a new wiki. This is purely for translations of Wikidata labels which should adequately identify languages or dialectal and orthographic differences rather than regions. Verdy p (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Another note: being a "macrolanguage" does not mean we cannot encode data. Chinese (zh) is ALSO a macrolanguage, in which standard Mandarin is only one member. But because this Mandarin language is highly predominent, it was decided to alias "zh" and "cmn" together (also because the simplified script is now predominant, "zh-Hans" is aliased in IANA registry for BCP47 by making "Hans" the default script. There's evidence that Mongolian also has a predominant language variant, the one used today and standardized in Mongolia (with the Cyrillic script).
Macrolanguages are not blockers at all: a macrolanguage is distinct from a language family in that it has a large mutual understanding with minor differences that are easy to understand :::::: (at least orally: the script however is hard to decipher for most native speakers even if this is exactly the same oral language within the macrolanguage group).
This is not the same about language families (notably "qu" for Quechua for which a more precise ISO 639-3 individual language code should be used as there's no evident mutual understanding and differences are no longer minor as they were in their old origin where they may have first emerged as dialects then as a macrolanguage, before being split like it occured between "ht" and "fr" when it emerged as a vivid creole, or between "fr" and "gcf"; as well the modern Filipino is first started as a dialect, then as a creole with good understanding i.e. a macrolanguage, then was separated definitely from the traditional Filipino dialect and today's Filipino is a strong creole separated from its 3 roots: old Filipino, Spanish and English...). Verdy p (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: So, what do you mean by "giving it the meaning that it does not have"? C933103 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
What is written above is about interpreting, giving it a meaning and it is not how we should deal with it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The IANA language tag registry does define criteria for what they allow as languages and follow the IETF standards. I see no reason why we need to follow the ISO standards here when the IETF seem more useful. ChristianKl () 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

### Why not learning how Azerbaijani (Q9292) works?Edit

The Azerbaijani is also a macrolanguage and have both North Azerbaijani (Q3515311) and South Azerbaijani (Q3449805), so we can assign both as "az" and "azb", therefore I suggest continue using "mn" for things in the Mongolia country, and "mvf" for Inner Mongolia, why not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between Mongolia country/Inner Mongolia seems to be about regions and not about scripts. People in Mongolia country can still use the traditional Mongolian script even when Cyrilic script is the default for Mongolia country. ChristianKl () 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The language policy is applicable for new projects. The code for az predates it. We would not have an az.wikipedia.org if the decision was to be made today.
Your understanding of language codes proves to be problematic. The code mn is for everything Mongolian. Any other interpretation is wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

### "Any language allowed in Wikidata"Edit

According to this WMF blogpost, seems like langcom have reached some consensusn back in 2013. It mentioned that "Languages used with multiple scripts need to be configured in this way.". What does it mean? Also, the post mentioned requirement for ISO 639-3 code but I don't see any point saying ISO 639-3 macrolanguage codes being excluded.C933103 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Coin og Museu Nacional d'Art de CatalunyaEdit

I find a lot of artworks placed at Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya who has instance of (P31) of coin (Q41207). Does anyone know if this is correct?. Seems that they are created by a bot. Example no label (Q27519005) Pmt (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to find out it would make sense to ping the bot owner. ChristianKl () 00:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm that the museum indeed has a coin collection. —seav (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Changes to the global ban policyEdit

Hello. Some changes to the community global ban policy have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. Matiia (Matiia) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

## One of seven equal parts of a wholeEdit

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) is heptad (Q29441572) (group of seven things). Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is seventh (Q42879824) (one of seven equal parts of a whole)? Is there another way to indicate that "Great Pyramid of Giza" is one of seven equal parts of "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" and such structuring of data is not necessary? --Fractaler (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose using instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) for this use-case as those properties are about identity. Your concern is about meronym/holonym relationships so part of (P361) and has part (P527) seem appropriate. If you want you can express with has parts of the class (P2670) and quantity (P1114) that there are exactly 7 wonders of the ancient world. ChristianKl () 14:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is part (Q15989253)? --Fractaler (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Not if you mean instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) with is. If you want to speak about something being a part, use part of (P361) and has part (P527) for it. ChristianKl () 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. "Great Pyramid of Giza" is a part of "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" or is not? --Fractaler (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The word "is" in the English language is very overloaded with many different meanings. You can't conclude from the fact that the English word "is" is being used that instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) are appropriate. We don't add instance of (P31) "part" to everything that uses "part of". That property already communicates all the necessary information. ChristianKl () 15:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Part of what editing a Wiki together is about is to come to consensus and edit based on common understanding. It seems you interacted with the Russian Wikipedia community in a way that they banned you because you didn't integrate yourself into the local consensus. I would like to have you continue to be in our community and that would be more likely to happen if you would invest more energy into trying understand other people views and use that understanding to guide your editing. In addition to understanding fellow community members, reading about how other communities model a problem domain is also about understaind other people views. ChristianKl () 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• As I understood your answer to the question*necessary information for whom/for what?, necessary information for community members, right? Maybe better about my ban in the relevant topic? --Fractaler (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
•   Comment Maybe a more general response: in one way or the other, it should be possible to store this information in Wikidata. Maybe if you present ways to display/extract it, it's more likely to gain some support. I find some of your things interesting, but they do need some thought to comprehend what is generally not needed for most subcategories ;) As I only looked at statements on random item, I can't really say if they are consistently applied and extractable across a series of items.
--- Jura 18:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. How by WD add info "A is B" to WD? --Fractaler (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There no general way. The word "is" can imply many different properties depending on context.
The wording "A is part of B" implies "part of". "A is green" would imply using "has quality". "A is FMA1000" would imply using the external identifier for Foundational Model of Anatomy. ChristianKl () 20:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If 1) "A is part of B" implies "part of" (and only) then this violation of the rights of the item, non-compliance with neutrality.The right to exist also has another point of view: in "A is part of B" it is meant that "A is С" (where С is a part of a divisible object B). Then, if 2) "A is green" would imply using "has quality" (and only), this is also violation of the rights of the item, non-compliance with neutrality. Second point of view: "A is a carrier of green color".
Because the ideology of properties does not allow deduction and induction, it does not provide an opportunity to trace the transitivity (as I informed in one topic before), I think sooner or later such an instrument in Wikidata will die (become atavism, rudiment).
In Foundational Model of Anatomy everything is mixed in a heap (for example, objects of a group and a group of objects have one superset). But the benefit of it is: it gives the right to the existence of certain scientific terms --Fractaler (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Items for scientific terms have a right to exist when they can be reliably sourced under (2) of our notability guidelines. You don't need to abuse the instance_of or subclass_of to justify their existence. When it comes to mathematical terms, MathWorld identifier (P2812) is enough to justify the existence of an item. ChristianKl () 12:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a charter of rights for items. Neutrality in the sense of our project defines the term doesn't mean that you can express your own personal opinion. We are a secondary database. It means that you have to provide sources. If you want to use instance_of or subclass_of in a nonstandard way it's not enough that you want to translate "A is green" to "A is subclasses of green object" you would actually need to bring a source where someone who models the domain says "A is subclass of green object". ChristianKl () 11:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
How a deleted item can has some right to protection (to to exist)?
"A is part of B" implies "part of". "A is green" would imply using "has quality" - this is just one point of view, one of the ways to model the world. Do you need references to the fact that if "A is part of B", then "A is part"? Or if "A is green", then "A is a carrier of green color". I understood correctly? And if I point out these sources, then the items and edits that I have created that satisfy these sources will be returned, and the administrator, the behavior of which, I think, does not correspond to the behavior of the administrator, will be responsible for lack of a team member feedback? --Fractaler (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
A reference that says "A is part" doesn't say anything about A being an instance or a subclass of part. You would actually need one that does. ChristianKl () 15:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
For example, Great Pyramid of Giza" (A) is a part (of B, of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World), here unclear what is A (being an instance or a subclass of part)? --Fractaler (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That sentence doesn't say anything about something being a instance or a subclass. Just because the word "is" appears doesn't mean that there's an implication that something is either. ChristianKl () 21:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) does not allow us to determine what Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is (a instance or a subclass)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
No, in this case Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is a meronym of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772). This is modeled via the "has part/part of" relationship. Your idea that "is" mean either instance or subclass is wrong. You could read literature about applied ontology if you want to understand this better. Apart from that Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) does not hav to contain any information about the identity of another item but only about how it relates to other items.
Wikidata is about structured data. Structured data means modeling relationship between different item with well defined relationshis and not with common language. As a result there no 1-on-1 correspondence between a word like "is" and a property. You always have to look at the relationship you want to model and see whether we have a property that was created for the relationship. If we have an existing one you can use it. Otherwise you can write a property proposal. On the other hand using a property in a way that it wasn't designed to be used because the you like the way it sounds in natural language is wrong. ChristianKl () 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
relationship (Q930933)? So far, only subset (Q177646)<->set (Q36161)<->superset (Q15882515) provides transitivity. What I am now talking about arose not just after reading the literature on ontology, but after its practical use and obtaining negative results on transitivity (which I already talked about). The lack of transitivity in your method is a defect that it can not eliminate, which will lead to its extinction. Nothing, better than set theory (Q12482) has not yet come up.
structured data (Q26813700) - description: empty.
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) is heptad (Q29441572) (group of seven things) or isn't? --Fractaler (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Set theory doesn't tell you anything about the property of items or relationships such as meronymity. "part of" does happen to be transitive. Set theory has nothing directly to say about concepts of identity such as 'instance' and 'subclass'. I see no problem with classifying Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) as heptad (Q29441572). ChristianKl () 14:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Set theory defines a rule. The properties of the object are determined, for example, in an empirical way.
Ok, if a set Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) is the a subset of the set heptad (Q29441572) ("group of seven things"), then Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) also consists of a seven things? --Fractaler (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "of a seven things" is not in line with the grammar of English, so let's pretend you mean "of seven things". {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3} according to the classic meaning of the term in set theory, so the fact that the {1, 2, 3} contains three elements doesn't mean that {1, 2} also contains 3 elements. ChristianKl () 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
a: yes, of course, thanks (in general, I belong to set (Q36161) "object that knows English", but, unfortunately, so far in its subset (Q177646) "object that knows English very badly").
The main reason for disputes is the lack of synchronization of terms. Set theory begins with the definition (extensional definition (Q5421961), intensional definition (Q1026899)) of a set. Will not it make it difficult for you to define {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2}? --Fractaler (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This isn't just about standard English. Even the average English speaker likely doesn't understand the difference between a subclass and a subset. This is about concepts of ontology. If you don't understand the difference between terms like subclass and subset, why argue about them instead of accepting the current practice of how relevant properties are used in Wikidata? ChristianKl () 13:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I in such cases do not argue, I just ask the interlocutor to show a difference between terms on an example of items of a Wikidata. Ie, where there will be a subset, but there will not be a subclass. And vice versa. For some reason, no one has dared to show the difference. Can you succeed? By the way, I remind you that at one time to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth was a common thing. --Fractaler (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I already gave you above an example. {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3} but no subclass. In Wikidata we could say '{1, 2, 3} "has part" 1', '{1, 2, 3} "has part" 2' and '{1, 2, 3} "has part" 3' to describe the contents of it.
If you think you have discovered a new theory about ontology go and try to publish an academic paper about it. If you categorily disagree with the ontology community, that would be the way to go about it. The problem is that you lack the relevant knowledge and it's not my role to write a book to teach you. You could go and do actual research by reading a few books about applied ontology and then come back. ChristianKl () 15:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why you don't want to define {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2}? {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2} are items of Wikidata? And why is there no pluralism of opinions, there is no neutrality, only one faith is imposed, and all the others are deleted without discussion? Is it normal? Fractaler (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
To the extend that Wikidata is neutral, that doesn't mean that Wikidata is in favor of original research. If you have a revolutionary theory that's like the earth resolving around the sun, Wikidata isn't the place to publish it but there are other venues.
If you have too much pluralism and different people use a property or item to mean to many different things than the data becomes useless for structured data, because the person who uses the data has no idea what the person who entered the data wanted to express. Coming to consensus is essential to doing structured data well. ChristianKl () 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why do not you just 1) give a definition (for {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2}), 2) show difference between terms subsets/subclass on an example of items of a Wikidata? Are you afraid to lose? --Fractaler (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I doubt meronymy (Q837495) applies here, ChristianKl. --Succu (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why? As Wikipedia writes in it's article on meronymy (Q837495): 'A meronym refers to a part of a whole. A word denoting a subset of what another word denotes is a hyponym. In knowledge representation languages, meronymy is often expressed as "part-of"'. ChristianKl () 23:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you define those terms that you use, please: 1) "part"; 2) "whole"; 3) "part of a whole"? --Fractaler (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I use them as they are used in the literature. If you want something to read "Applied Ontology: An Introduction" by Katherine Munn and Barry Smith is good. ChristianKl () 12:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe you and have no doubt that you have 100_500 references to literature. Just to make a substantive conversation, scientists first agree, they give a definition of the terms that are used. I'm just asking for a definition of the terms that you use. Can you do it and not leave the answer? --Fractaler (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Scientists frequently point to the literature for the terms they use and add a lot of citations to their work so that people who want to understand things better can see where concepts come from. I had a long discussion with you and invested plenty of effort in explaining myself. A lot more than the other admin that deleted your items and then spoke about banning you in case you create more of them. I don't think it's my role to explain how applied ontology works to you. If you want to convince me who actually talks to you instead of just deleting your items, then you would first need to familiarize yourself with the topic. ChristianKl () 18:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
How scientists differ from representatives of religion or pseudoscience: when the representatives of religion or pseudoscience run out of arguments, they begin to send to read literature, refer to authorities, society, etc. But you certainly are not one of those? Fractaler (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you discuss the nature of energy with a physicist and have no clue of modern physics they will tell you to read a textbook. I'm doing the same thing. It not worth the time of physicist to explain physics to every person who thinks they invented a new theory of everything. Keep in mind as well that Wikidata is not about doing original research and showing with arguments that your original research is right. ChristianKl () 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have already written that questions on the terms you use have arisen not from amateurism, as you are trying to present here, but after studying the special literature and applying the theory in practice. The scientist, if he does not know the answer, says so: "I do not know the answer", but do not lead the conversation aside. When I discuss the problem with scientist, we first try to synchronize (use the common terminology space) our terminology (otherwise there will simply be a loss of time, how it happens now). Such a procedure does not work with representatives of religion or pseudoscience (they do not even want to think about the alternative, and find all sorts of excuses for this). Moreover, in the case of representatives of religion ends as always - they do not even allow thought about alternatives (otherwise it will no longer be a religion). And what aggressive representatives of religion do with other points of view? Yes, for today there are a lot of examples of consequences. On a personal example with ru-Wikipedia version 2012.01 I will say that there was completely no tolerance, neutrality, and the alternative point of view was being killed was baned. --Fractaler (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Modelling Performing Arts ProductionsEdit

Dear all,

In the context of the WikiProject Performing Arts, we are presently working on a pilot ingest of data about performing arts productions. We have now largely mapped the data from a first dataset and identified areas where the ontology on Wikidata needs to be complemented in our view. We have gathered the mapping information and our reflections on the data mapping page. Please have a look and comment here or on the talk page of the data mapping page. I will now start creating new classes and propose new properties, starting with the less problematic ones. Topics covered are:

• Adopting a more nuanced approach towards modelling FRBR Group 1 classes (literary, musical, choreographic works)
• Modelling of Performance Works
• How to ingest data about character roles
• Modelling theater seasons and how to point to them (pointer to time intervals)

--Beat Estermann (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is really a good work and I hope this can be used later as example for data import: we have a clear analysis of 2 different classifications, and a preliminary discussion before import. For the discussion itself I propose to use the talk page of the proposition page in order to keep everything at the same place. Snipre (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the two projects again; apparently, the ping template won't work if the participants pages contain bullet points.--Beat Estermann (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## How to add a database to Wikidata?Edit

I want to plot the geographical area in New Spain / Mexico since ~1776 to serve as a companion and data quality check on the Wikipedia articles on the "Territorial evolution of Mexico" and the "Territorial evolution of North America since 1763" -- and to compare with a similar plot for "Territorial evolution of the United States".

I have numbers that suggest I may be missing roughly 8 percent of the land area; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico.

Suggestions on how to get started?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I'm not sure I understand what exactly you want to import.
I want to be able to create a table of events and land area involved that changed the size of New Spain and Mexico, like I posted in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico (without the columns for the US). I'm currently interested in what was New Spain prior to 1821 and Mexico since.
To work backwards from the current status, I'd like to start with an entry for Mexico (= P150?) being 1,972,550 km2 (per the Wikipedia article on Mexico) with end time (P582) = “current”. Then we could change “|area_km2 = 1,972,550” and “|area_sq_mi = 761,606” in the Wikipedia article on Mexico to point to this Wikidata entry. The article also includes “|percent_water = 2.5”. The article on the United States includes “|area_sq_mi=3,796,742 |percent_water=6.97 |area_label2=Total land area |area_data2={{convert|3,531,905|sqmi|km2|abbr=on}}”.
What should be done to distinguish between area in land, water, and total and percent water? Do we use area (P2046) for all of these or create new data elements? And which should be primary and which computed? Or is it easy to create four data elements with two relationships, so a user can specify any two, and the other two are computed automatically?
Then I'd like to add entries reflecting changes in external boundaries going backwards. If I read correctly the Wikipedia article on w:Territorial evolution of Mexico, the most recent change in the external size of Mexico was its transfer of 49.2 acres to the US by the “Mexico–United States International Boundary and Water Commission” in 1976 due to changes in the Rio Grand / Rio Bravo that separates the two countries. I did not include these Boundary and Water Commission changes in the table I posted to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico, but I did include Mexico's loss to France on January 28, 1931 of Clipperton Island with 6 km^2 = 2.3 mi^2.
My primary interest at the moment is producing a plot of the size of Mexico / New Spain back to 1783 or so. I've already done that and found a discrepancy of just over 7 percent. When I posted this question, I thought it would be a good idea to put what I had in Wikidata and invite others to fix any deficiencies there. However, I'm beginning to suspect that doing anything with Wikidata at this point may involve more work than I can afford right now.
However, if this can be set up correctly, others could later add shape files that could ultimately make it relatively easy for people to create maps showing the evolution of virtually any geographic entity, city or state, over time AND plot the size in km^2 or acres, hectare, etc.
Comments? Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy:
• Re distinguishing land/water area: The current way of doing that is for the area (P2046) statement to have the qualifier applies to part (P518) land (Q11081619) or applies to part (P518) water (Q283). (That's literally the item for water the chemical, which is clearly a bad way to do things, but with ~4500 uses, it looks like it's become a standard. Something we'll probably have to fix at some point...)
• For the current area, the way to indicate that something is current is to not have a end time (P582) qualifier on that statement. Mexico (Q96) already has a statement for the current area.
• For marking the events that resulted in the change of area, I think (?) you can use end cause (P1534) as a qualifier to point to the event.
--Yair rand (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much.
Sadly, the time I had to put this into Wikidata has expired, and I may not find time in the near future to do this. However, I will create my own private copy of your comments, so I can refer to them the next time I see something for which Wikidata might be useful. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What is the recommended procedure for a conflict between a Wikidata item and what seems to be the same quantity in a Wikipedia article?

For example, the area (P2046) of Mexico (Q96) is "1,972,550±1 square kilometre", but apparently the same item "Superficie" = 1 964 375 2​ km² in w:es:México. In w:Mexico, it matches Wikidata. (I will post a question on the talk page for w:es:México, as that is probably closest to the source of the discrepancy.)

Also, I see items "|area_km2 = 1,972,550" and "|area_sq_mi = 761,606" in w:Mexico. I assume these could be changed to refer to area (P2046) of Mexico (Q96), but I have so far not found the documentation that would tell me how to do that.

I found Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects. From this I concluded that {{#statements:Mexico|from=area}} might insert 1,972,550. I tried this in w:Mexico. It sort of worked, but had a curious side effect:
• "|area_km2 = 1,972,550" displayed "1,972,550 km2 (761,610 sq mi)".
• "|area_km2 = " displayed "761,606 sq mi (1,972,550 km2)": The metric units were demoted to a parenthetical display, while the English units were promoted to the main display.
Since most of the world's population uses the metric system, I decided NOT to implement this change and instead report the experience here.
Comments? Wikidata is quite valuable. It would be more valuable if it didn't demote the metric system like this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## Representation of average height as a histogramEdit

In some cases a statement is about a partial statistic about the described entity, typically bins from a histogram of areas within some height limits for a municipality. This is the case for municipalities in Norway, we have the histograms but we don't have average heights.

The average height of an area could be described as several bins of area (P2046) ranging from and to a specific height (P2048). It is not given that bins are of equal size, and it is not given that they use some specific units. For time we have start time (P580) and end time (P582), but not for height. This must then be identified as a bin, possibly with determination method (P459) set to histogram (Q185020), but it would be clearer if there was a "bin for histogram". ("Determination method" is slightly wrong, for this purpose it should be "Description method".)

This would place the bins in area (P2046) and make the interpretation of that property more difficult. An alternative could be to make a property "area for average height", but a more obvious property would be "average height". Still we might not have an average height even if we have a histogram over the bins.

How should this be represented, any ideas? I wonder if this is best represented as statistics and not as metadata as such. This is about the fine distinction whether the qualifier identifies a statement or whether it describes a (composite) selection. Jeblad (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you give a concrete example? ChristianKl () 11:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Data from Statistics Norway for one municipality is like below, but this is just an example of histogram data. Check Wikipedia for a description of a w:histogram. Jeblad (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Example data from Halden, Norway
Areal (km²), efter region, height above sea, and area"
Municipality Height (m) Area (km²)
Halden
0-59 66.83
60-159 315.44
160-299 258.72

## P1532Edit

country for sport (P1532): country a person or a team represents when playing a sport

but

Andalusia (Q5783) is not a country. Should we change the label?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xaris333 (talk • contribs) at 13. 11. 2017, 12:36‎ (UTC).

country for sport (P1532) mean "countries/region" in my language. C933103 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: But the English description is "country for sport". Should we change it? Xaris333 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## Random URL partsEdit

Hello. We have a few external IDs which have a formatter URL (P1630) with a small part that can be changed randomly without breaking the link. For example:

External ID formatter URL (P1630)
NFL.com ID (P3539) `http://www.nfl.com/player/n/\$1/profile`
AustralianFootball.com ID (P3546) `http://australianfootball.com/players/player/a/\$1`
FCI rider ID (P4278) `http://www.federciclismo.it/it/person/p/\$1/`

As we can see, some of them use a single letter that is whether randomly picked or chosen to match the first one in the name of the database. But maybe should we try to make these things obvious and use the same `wd` or `wikidata` everywhere. This is really a detail but that would be nice, wouldn't it? Thierry Caro (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When I've seen that I've encouraged the use of '_' as the random string in the formatter URL to indicate it's arbitrary (if that works). But I'd be fine with 'wd' too. 'wikidata' seems long. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with using _ as random part is that's a valid character that can appear in urls. ChristianKl () 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith, ChristianKl: I guess I'll do this with `wd` and add as Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) on formatter URL (P1630) the following note: `You may use 'wd' whenever part of the URL can be randomly modified without breaking the link.`. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## described by source (P1343) and use of stated in (P248) as qualifier rather than referenceEdit

There has been a broad use of stated in (P248) to qualify a listed article (biographical, newspaper, ...) of a described source, (see example Augustus Hare (Q4821445)). This is flagging as a constraint violation (Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P248) which states that it should be used as a reference only. Is this a case of trying to modify the constraint violation, or are we missing a more appropriate property to point to the listed article? Thoughts for resolution?

As a note, the use of P248 replicates the practice of the qualification with section, verse, or paragraph (P958) — rather than addition as reference — to directly specify the article component. As the use is to drill-down within a work, rather than a typical citation/reference, changing these to be in the reference section seems incorrect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a mess.
Perhaps described by source (P1343) could just point to the article directly? Or, if the article must be separate in a qualifier, a different property should be used. Maybe applies to part (P518) or perhaps a new property should be created?
Mangling the scope of such a widely-used property to include something not at all similar seems like a really bad idea. --Yair rand (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yair rand:, okay, so we are needing to change it. The only other close 'active-link' property that I saw was subject of the statement (P805) as it is also called article, etc. and is to be as a qualifier. Applies to part is possible, though it doesn't have a natural ring as something to use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Sorting of valuesEdit

Currently, there's an open request for a property to store information about how to sort https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/sort_by_qualifier . It would be great to have more examples of cases where things currently aren't ordered well and we could profit from a better sort order. If anybody of you notice interesting cases, please add them to that discussion. ChristianKl () 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Vectors are MatricesEdit

scalar (Q1289248) ${\displaystyle \subset }$  vector (Q13471665) ${\displaystyle \subset }$  matrix (Q44337) ${\displaystyle \subset }$  tensor (Q188524).

Actually it depends on the defention of the respective items. Could we anyway tag this with subclass of (P279)? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To the extend that it depends on the definition of the respective items, about how we start by making that definition more clear? ChristianKl () 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple definitions to be dealt with;
• scalar ${\displaystyle \subset }$  row vector, column vector ${\displaystyle \subset }$  matrix ${\displaystyle \subset }$  multi-dimensional matrix ~ tensor
• scalar ${\displaystyle ~\subset }$  vector, covector ${\displaystyle \subset }$  tensor
I don't know which are considered primary definitions here. Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it is pretty mixed up, scalars and vectors are allready tagged as tensors. The two relations you mentioned do not contradict, if you consider row vectors as a representation of covectors. (as defined in German) Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Get Wikidata item given site ID and page nameEdit

Hi, given a site ID (eg. `enwiki`) and a page name (eg: `Italy`) how can I get automatically Q38? I'd like to do that work with more than just one page, so this work should be automatic and quick. Thank you, --★ → Airon 90 17:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

API requests such as https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&sites=enwiki&titles=Italy&format=json would do the job, but you still have to parse the JSON object. See mw:Wikibase/API#wbgetentities for details. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's not a problem. I would use Python to do that work ;) Thank you very much, MisterSynergy! :) --★ → Airon 90 18:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also Special:ItemByTitle with which you can do things like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ItemByTitle/enwiki/Italy. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
You can also use Pywikibot. What is your use case exactly? What problem are you trying to solve? Multichill (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I found the quickest way for me was to use a spreadsheet with the WP article name as first column, second "P31", third simply some bogus like "a" (all without the " marks), and then copy/paste the whole thing to https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/quick_statements.php , say "enwiki" in the first field there, and let it start to run (which will do nothing), and then copy the whole thing again from the text field there after a couple of seconds when the tool has converted everything to item numbers. Maybe there's a tool that does just this without the workaround I use, but this is what I came up with by accident. Anvilaquarius --08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at pagepile. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This looks like what I want, but it doesn't really work. The output is not in table form, but a list with numbers and article names (which I don't want and don't need) and the alternative output in txt is without line breaks, neither is usable by c/p in my spreadsheet as quick as I would like to. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## FactGrid workshop in BerlinEdit

Hey everyone :)

We are working with researchers from the University of Erfurt on a project called FactGrid. The goal is to build a wiki for researchers to collect data related to their research. It will use Wikibase as the underlying technology, just like Wikidata. We'll start with data related to the Illuminati based on the Gothaer Illuminati Research Database. You can find blog posts with more details and musings here. I also started a page on Wikidata about it here. My hope is that this will be one of the many Wikibase installations in Wikidata's ecosystem in the future that is highly connected with Wikidata and that Wikidata can partially import data from where wanted and needed. There will be a kick-off workshop at Wikimedia Deutschland's office in Berlin on the 1st and 2nd of December. It'd be great if we have a few more people there who want to drive this project forward and can help with their experience on Wikidata. If you'd like to attend please let me know. Details about the workshop are here.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It took me a while to understand the value of pushing external Wikibase installation but I came around to agreeing that it's a good idea. External projects can host original research. At WikidataCon I also understand the need of some projects to be able to simply create a new property to experiment with it, which Wikidata can't serve because we need to put more effort into creating properties that are actually working over problem domains.
The memorandum of understanding reads well and I'm happy to take part in the workshop. ChristianKl () 13:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## The expert versus the amateur contributor ... Help NeededEdit

It's a simple thing I seek. Throughout the world are experts in the most obscure of things and much of that knowledge is in their heads. When they die, the knowledge is lost.

I have a rare English car called a Bristol (411, for those who know about them). I belong to an email forum that uses Yahoo... long in the tooth, and not the best way to record knowledge. So I have proposed to the members, mostly men, many of whom are over 60, that we should set up and use a wiki. We can't use Wikipedia because original source documentation would be deleted instantly... not encyclopedic. So I started looking around. I came across wikicars.org, but while it has a log-in, it does not have a create account option, nor can I find an email contact. It looks like it has not been used since 2010.

I then found this site, wikidata.org, but for the amateur volunteer, it's a bit daunting. Wikipedia I understand, and I can show others how to make entries on it. Not so sure about Wikidata.

Here is what we want to do:

The knowledge base needs to be permanent, not something maintained by a car club that could cease if its membership dwindles.

We wish to divide the knowledge into models from 1946 to about 2010. The 400, 401, 402... to 411 and then some of the more recent cars. Then we need subcategories just like one finds in car repair manuals... engine, brakes, body restoration, fixing instruments, etc. We need the subcategories to be simple to access... follow some instructions and post your knowledge, your photographs and drawings. We then will ask our colleagues to fill the pages with their knowledge. It's not like fixing a new car where you order parts from the dealer, and the old ones come apart easily. You have to know different ways to do it, including what parts came from other British car companies, what can be adapted, or what needs to be done better. All that will go into the Wiki, if we can get it going.

I would appreciate advice on how to accomplish this.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bristol7527 (talk • contribs) at 15. 11. 2017, 07:22 (UTC).

I don't see how Wikidata could help you. Maybe Wikia is something for you? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Wikidata could be suitable to include details about car models and cross-reference any existing manual about them. In some obscure corner of WMF sites, there is a lot of info on tractor models.
Information about individual cars might be harder to include, especially in the level of detail you are interested in.
--- Jura 07:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

--- Any idea how to gain access to Wikicars.org?Bristol7527 (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.whois.com/whois/wikicars.org gives you the contact information for the owner of Wikicars.org but I agree that setting up a new Wiki with Wikia is likley the better solution for you. ChristianKl () 12:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there any alternative to wikia? As in I know there are tons of wikifarm but most of them are so small that contribution toward them would be flooded within mass of webpages when searching via search engines. Wikia itself is an option but the way it's gearing toward social network and "fandom", embracing nonstandard toolkits which would hesitate users when they try to create new projects on it. I have proposed an WMF-backed project for it on meta but I don't think WMF would actually accept that proposal. What other options would be available? C933103 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposal goes against Jimmy's financial interests so, there's pushback from that direction. On the other hand, if you really believe in the vision 2030 statement on bringing all kinds of knowledge under the Wikimedia umbrella it would make a lot of sense to also have a place within the project that can host English content that's not notable by enwiki standards.
If you want to invest a lot of efforts you could setup your own foundation and have as mission to hand over the project to the WMF as soon as the WMF would accept handover. If you get traction I don't think the WMF would oppose a handover. ChristianKl () 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Birds described as reptilesEdit

I have discovered that we have a number of items, being protonym (Q14192851) of items about birds, but with descriptions saying they are reptiles, and with the same common name, which does not aid disambiguation. These include:

but I suspect that that list is far from complete. How should these be processed? And how can we find other such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer   Support merging the second pair, as Q25652651 doesn't give me full things to be independent. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Both represent different concepts, Liuxinyu970226. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017Edit

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

### WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017Edit

WikidataCon 2017 group photo

Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about a knowledge base conceived ten years ago, if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the Wikimedia Foundation; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.

WD-FIST explained

And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

Editor User:Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add w:Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your Wikipedia user talk page.

Charles Matthews (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## The Wikidata template in the English Wikipedia is up for deletion againEdit

w:Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_15#Template:Authority_control, decide for yourself what to vote. --RAN (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, can't this be defined directly in the interface?
--- Jura 19:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I left my response (diff) after the proposer tried to come up with a lame excuse.
You know what the downside is of standing up to bullies? I'll probably get bullied a lot more in the future. Multichill (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like the discussion was closed before people could bring up the new Wikibase development that no longer requires the template being added to articles. Somehow Wikipedia seems to have lost the capacity to discuss ..
--- Jura 02:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Main page issueEdit

Two quote from the main page (emboldening mine):

• Welcome to Wikidata - the free knowledge base with 38,643,300 data items that anyone can edit.
• 2017-11-12: The forty-three-millionth item, about an article in a scientific journal, is created.

These apparently-conflicting figures are likely to confuse people who do not understand the context - and the page's audience, new users, is likely to have such people in the majority. How can we improve things? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO the creation of Hepatitis B or hepatitis C co-infection in individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus and effect of anti-tuberculosis drugs on liver function. (Q43000000) is not worth a entry on the main page. I think real achievements like average of 8 statements per item or 600M edits should be added to that section. Also other news, i.e. WikidataCon, could be added instead of the boring Q-count. --Pasleim (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think we shouldn't report "forty-three-millionth item" in the news-section. Especially a metric that includes deleted items is not a metric that's worthy to be celebrated. Wikimedia projects are supposed to measure their success by the number of active editors (people who edit 5/100 times per month). When we reach new milestones about our editorship that's worth celebrating by putting it into the news section.
I don't think that the fact that WikiCite raised the average statements per items to 8 by using a lot of statements in items about scientific papers is something to celebrate either.
Metric are a way to decide whether we make progress. When we ponder a policy change it's more important to think about whether it raises the number of active editors than whether it increases the number of items, the number of statements per item or the number of labels per item. ChristianKl () 18:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
To all users, you are free and encouraged to write all the news that you think they could be interesting. Pamputt (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Are imports of new datasets to Mix'n'Match and milestones in matching datasets appropriate for Main Page news? - PKM (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say yes. If we have "too more" information at some points, we may filter some of them but for now, let's go. Pamputt (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## QuickStatements and 2017 Community Wishlist SurveyEdit

I went over the limit of 3 proposals per user in 2017 Community Wishlist Survey and have to drop my proposal to Expand QuickStatements to allow wider variety of statements. If someone feels like this proposal is a good idea they can adopt it by adding their name as the Proposer and adding the page to meta:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## How to link "Han-ji" articles on minnan wikipedia in wikidata?Edit

On min nan wikipedia, a number of articles written in "han-ji" script have been created in "Talk" namespace, as oppose to latin scripts that are commonly found for articles on main namespace. Those articles in "Talk" namespace would be a duplicate of articles in main namespace but are written in different script. For example, see nan:Canada and nan:Talk:Canada. There seems to be a proposal to create a "hanji" namespace for articles written in hanji script on the wikipedia which have been passed but doesn't seems to be enacted yet. So:

2. Canada (Q21287484) is a permanent duplicated item (P2959) of Canada (Q16). On meta's community tech wishlist, I have expressed desire to enhance the system so that linked entry in Canada (Q21287484) can be added to Canada (Q16) directly without the need of creating duplicated item. However some users said it have been discussed before and the result is against such measure. Where was such discussion being made and why was that? C933103 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• There's value in being able to directly navigate a person to a page in a wiki if a page exist. At the moment you have multiple pages it's not clear where the user is supposed to be sent. That means that every tool has to incorporate the case. In the case you are proposing Wikidata can't directly send the person who wants to see the hanji version to the hanji version and the person who wants to see the latin version to the latin version.
Additionally, it seems like a hack. There's no good reason why there shouldn't be a separate subdomain for a separate script so that Wikidata can link to the two different versions under different subdomains. It would be better if the mediawiki software would be configuered in a way that allows in this case a single Wikipedia community to have two subdomains that point to the relevant scripts.
I looked at IETF and currently it seems like there isn't even a IETF language tag for something like nan-han-ji. It might be worthwhile to register one. ChristianKl () 23:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: What happened to nan-Hani, nan-Hans, or nan-Hant as appropriate? Also @C933103: and suffer from a similar problem. Mahir256 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed a hack. As for reason why it's done? There is a request for such a wikipedia on meta but Langcom still haven't verified the request yet (The request was 9 years old). Even if they process the request, they will likely turn it down too on the ground of the lack of ISO 639 code.
The script code for hanji should be either Hani, Hant or Hans. These combinations aren't registerede in IANA subtag registry yet. I suppose it's possible to ask wikimedia taiwan to reg relevant IETF combination but I don't think that'd help what we're talking about.
Other than nan/hak/cdo, hy/gom/mn are other wikipedias that have same situation although those articles are placed on main namespace instead. Additionally, vi and ko and mn have off-site wikis because of alternative script C933103 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: See also phab:T165882, they are now requesting to create a "Hàn-jī" namespace so all the talk pages will be actual talk pages. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
But that's still not done yet. And jusging byu the lack of recent activity on the ticket I don't think it's going to be done anytime soonC933103 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: Sorry but what means "jusging byu"? I can't find wikt:jusging on Wiktionary, and wikt:byu seems to be a Rōmaji? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: sorry that is a typo of "judging by". C933103 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems like the status quo is that languages like Min Nan try to hack around decisions of the language committee. This leaves to the bad consequences that different languages use different solutions for solving the problem of having multiple scripts.
I don't think it's worthwhile for Wikidata to try to accommodate some hack. It would be better to formulate a language policy that actually works for the communities in question so that they don't have to hack around the language committee.
One way to do this would be to write a RfC on meta that declares change the policy of needing a ISO 639 code into needing a valid IETF language tag.
It might also be worthwhile to talk to the WMF who actually want to help small wikis. A policy that results in off-site Wikis getting created should be neither in the interest of the Wikimedia community nor the WMF. ChristianKl () 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There are actually talking about two situation here,
1. First, the use of Talk namespace to host hanji article in Minnan wikipedia. Since it's probably transient so it probably don't need much attention.
2. Second, after the phabricator ticket completed, then Minnan wiki will still have two separate article for each individual subject, and it will the same as at least half dozen other wikis being mentioned.
These would still need to be supported. And I wouldn't exactly call them "hack", as they have been used by various wikipedia including chinese wikipedia ever since their creation (for chines wikipedia, until the implementation of language converter), and probably predate any language policy. C933103 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Is the use of diplomatic relation (P530) restricted to country with formal diplomatic ties?Edit

• The label for the wikidata property in most western language only say "diplomatic relationship" without referring to it as formal or not.
• However the CJK label for the property refer to "Countries with diplomatic ties" signifying it should only be applied on countries that have formal diplomatic relationships.
• In the original application for the property, it was not made clear, although the proposed qualifier for start and end date indicate it might mean formal diplomatic relationship.
• In actual usage, the situation is mixed. For instance, in Taiwan (Q865), you see its diplomatic relation (P530) with countries like United Kingdom (Q145) and Panama (Q804) have been given an end date, there are also the like of United States of America (Q30), Australia (Q408) and Ukraine (Q212) that are not given an end date, especially the relationship between Taiwan (Q865) and Ukraine (Q212) were never formal but they're still linked there (with main article).
• Could its meaning be standarized? C933103 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the pattern in which this property is supposed to be used is along with subject of the statement (P805) to point to an item about the actual relationship. Given that there might be Wikipedia articles about diplomatic relationship that aren't formal I would suggest that this property includes nonformal ties and it might make sense to standardize it that way.
Additionally, I think it makes sense to raise such a topic on the talk page of the property and ping relevant Wikiprojects. Having discussions like this on the project chat means that interested parties might not know about it. ChristianKl () 22:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Copied to Property_talk:P530, not surewhat wikiproject could be pinged. C933103 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Wikipedia article with multiple meaning in same article.Edit

For example, ja:専用軌道 is currently introducing 3 different things on same page. 1. tramways (as defined by Japanese law) dedicated to cargo transport, 2. tramways (as defined by Japanese law) that are laid with dedicated right of ways, 3. railways laid on dedicated land. How should they be linked in wikidata? The current linked article to ko wikipedia in the currently linked item describe the (3.) point. C933103 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Link to off site wiki?Edit

As mentioned above, there is currently a wiki for Mongolian in Traditional Mongolian Script as uhaan wiki, a Vietnamese Han-nom Wiki at Hannom-rcv.org, a minnan hanji wiki at taigi-pahkho.wikia.com, and a Korean Hanja wiki at kore.wikia.com. Additionally there are also a large Korean general-purpose wiki at namu.wiki. And then there are also other wikis like many specific-subject wikia sites (like a proposal for a car wiki mentioned above), uncyclopedia (you know what it is), and baidu baike (largest chinese online encyclopedia on the internet although copyright and other aspects of the site are not that clean), and such. Is it possible to link all of them in the wikidata database? There are currently Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) for Encyclopædia Britannica (Q455), can these be handled the same way?C933103 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you are needing to review Wikidata:Wikidata for authority control and Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control if you are talking about linking item to item, rather than a link from the item to the official websites.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what do you mean and not sure if these are related to what I'm talking aboutC933103 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, then maybe you are looking for Help:Identifiers. It is unclear to me exactly what you are trying to achieve.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I mean, allow users to use wikidata to navigate toward items on other wikis in the same way that users can use wikidata to navigate toward items on wikipedia, encyclopedia britanhnica, and other WMF sites.C933103 (talk)06:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: We already have some properties that link to outside wiki's; just make a property proposal for the ones you think will be useful and that will allow adding these links. Or you can always add links with the more generic property described at URL (P973). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Help with mergingEdit

Could somebody please merge Q43216992 (Catherine Neill) with Q26262898 (Catherine Annie Neill)? I tried to look up how to merge them myself but I am unfamiliar with Wikidata (I mainly stick to the English Wikipedia) and the instructions were a little complicated for me. Thanks for your help. 97198 (talk) 10:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Csigabi (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Odd system messagesEdit

I use the British English locale and have recently been getting a few system messages in Italian instead of in English, despite the rest of the interface being in English. For example, when entering data for title (P1476) I get "Linguaggio (obbligatorio)" instead of "Language (mandatory)" (which appears in the en and en-ca locales). Is there a logical reason for this? Jc86035 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone had added a wrong translation on translatewiki.net, now fixed. It will be updated on Wikidata after few days. Stryn (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Importing thesis data from the University of Edinburgh Research ArchiveEdit

Hi, at the University of Edinburgh we have been discussing importing the thesis data from the 27,000 records in the Edinburgh Research Archive (ERA) into Wikidata following on from the good work that Martin Poulter did with importing the Oxford Research Archive thesis data. e.g. South Asian Muslim politics, 1937-1958. So far we have decided on the statements we would like to create for the born digital records and for the pre-2000 records which can be found in this Google doc. The statements in red are the 'would like to include' but may not be initially possible. If there are any comments on the model proposed then do let me know. The main questions would be:

1. how to model the wide variety of thesis types on Wikidata. I count 24 types in the ERA collection and some do not have an item on Wikidata yet while Master of Letters and Master of Literature seem to be treated as 1 item rather two distinct items. We proposed a statement of P31 instance of thesis (Q1266946) with a qualifier added to this statement of instance of (P31) Master of Science (Q950900) depending on which of the 24 thesis types is needed. Open to other suggestions though.
2. Do we need an identifier property created for the Edinburgh Research Archive if we are using (P4101) Dissertation submitted to – University of Edinburgh (Q160302) and reference URL (S854) – “ERA link” as well as Described at URL (P973) – abstract link / ERA link.
3. If we use (P1922) – First line Should this be the first line of the thesis or the thesis abstract?

Any comments welcome. I can knock up an example data item for a born digital record and an example item for the pre-2000 records if this would be helpful? Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc, Pigsonthewing:, as the proposers of Ecole des chartes thesis abstract ID (P4465) and Wikidata:Property proposal/EThOS thesis ID. Mahir256 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Sounds good!

1. I would create separate items "Master of Science thesis", "Master of Letters or Litterature thesis", etc.
2. For 27K records, I would say so.
3. Use both, qualified with "applies to part"

Please include EThOS IDs, where you can, and once the property is created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I left some notes on the google doc. Two things I'd perhaps disagree with Andy on - firstly I think a generic "masters thesis" and then some kind of new property to indicate the degree it was submitted for would be a better way to go; and secondly a ERA identifier property seems superfluous if we have the URL plus also an ETHOS ID. Better to use the aggregator than the local value - simplifies querying once you're working across institutions. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew, these had mostly been my thoughts. I agree that the ERA identifier is superfluous when we are already planning to provide an aggregated ID and a link back to the source record on ERA. As for the hierarchy of the different thesis details, I must profess ignorance to best practice for these sorts of things on Wikidata so grateful to be getting some feedback ChaoticReality (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, could you explain the thinking behind the seperate items for each type of thesis? This is my first time working with Wikidata (although I was on the ORA team for a couple of years pre-Martin) and so I am not so knowledgable about how categorisation works. My instinct tells me that asserting the item is a thesis first, (which, apart from the University, is the only data in common across these records) and then the more specific type gives them the broadest possible scope to be useful to wikidata. Since most of the "sub"-types already exist as WD objects, it would also mean only needing to create a couple of new objects, and reusing as many as possible of the objects already in use. Cheers ChaoticReality (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
With the exception of humans, we class items specifically ("instance of non-fiction book" or "...of novel" being prefereed to "...of book", for example), and make the classes subclasses of other classes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. So we would create a data item for each thesis type that doesn't already exist and use P279 to link them to the thesis object? Or P31? ChaoticReality (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should we also update existing items that don't yet have links? For example Doctor of Philosophy (Q752297) is a subclass of Doctoral Degree (Q849697) but Doctor of Education (Q837184) is not. So should I include statements to make that connection? Thanks for all the assistance, ChaoticReality (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• If it's not already done, would you link them from the author item under the academic degree (P512)-statement?
--- Jura 13:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If the author has an existing Wikidata entry, and I can definitively match it to our details, then yes. Otherwise we haven't made a final decision yet as to whether to also create records for each author as opposed to just a text property of the thesis object. ChaoticReality (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If you can't match it with existing items, I'd suggest to create it with educated at (P69), academic degree (P512) and floruit (P1317); possibly also occupation (P106). This would be more than we have on many people.
--- Jura 14:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## NepaliEdit

May we know why we can not see "Nepali" Language while selecting the language?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.10.28.52 (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 16 November 2017‎ (UTC).

## position held (P39)Edit

Hello all, I have a question about the qualifiers of position held (P39).

My problem is: Getúlio Vargas (Q156844), for example, was one of the Presidents of Brazil, during two periods (11-03-1930 to 10-29-1945 and 01-31-1951 to 08-24-1954). In his item, the position held (P39) property has two President of Brazil (Q5176750) values, both with start time (P580) and end time (P582). Is that correct? Another example is Geraldo Alckmin (Q964493), who is in his 4th mandate as a State Governor of Brazil in São Paulo (Q174) (from 2001 to 2003, re-elected in 2003 until resigning in 2006, elected in 2011 until 2015 and re-elected in 2015 until now (so no end time (P582) for that mandate)). What should one do? Put 4 entries of State Governor of Brazil? Propose the creation of a mandate property? Please, help. Ederporto (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ederporto: You have exactly the right idea; add the position multiple times for each contiguous interval during which the person held the position. Getúlio Vargas (Q156844) is set up properly, and Geraldo Alckmin (Q964493) may be set up similarly as well. (Note that with respect to contiguous intervals, there should be two position held (P39) statements--one for his tenure from 2001 to 2006 and one from 2011 to the present.) Mahir256 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thanks for the quick asnwer! I'm worried about the result of having two equal values for P39, for example, in a infobox that takes P39 of Getúlio Vargas (Q156844). Will appear President of Brazil (Q5176750) twice? Does not seem to be right, and may be extremely laborious create an if command in the template code for every possible value of P39. Ederporto (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ederporto: It depends how it's handled for Brazilian politicians. In general, the approach is do a single statement for continuous mandates.
--- Jura 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you provide an actual reference for that? Previous discussions, in which you were invloved, led to the contrary (examples: 1, 2). The general consensus is to do a statement by mandate, even if they are contiguous, for the reasons explained in these discussions and below by Oravrattas. — Envlh (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are confusing France and the UK with other countries. UK MP have a very special model.
--- Jura 07:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You are not answering to my question and you are not providing any reference to the point of view you are pushing (and by the way, the first link is mainly about Estonia, not UK). — Envlh (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say that one position held (P39) is fine on continuing mandates where there would be no difference other than contiguous end time (P582)/start time (P580) dates. However, if we want to record different information about each mandate (e.g. a distinct elected in (P2715), or different significant event (P793) qualifiers pointing at separate inauguration items, or the like, then splitting into separate P39s would be appropriate. Some countries also use a new series ordinal (P1545) after a re-election, in which case we'd usually also want to split into separate statements. --Oravrattas (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Parameter: Medical specialty (P1995)Edit

(moved from Wikidata:Contact the development team There is a problem/confusion with this parameter in mental disorders. In this way, the scheme seems to indicate that the disorder is only of a medical nature, when in reality its approach is often psychological/psychotherapeutic (not only psychiatric). For example, in this disorder Q1060310, at the parameter medical specility there is: psychiatry, but psychologists/psychotherapists often have to deal with it (or Q178190). Likewise, with most personality disorders (Q270673), except for cases of severe episodes of psychosis, because the treatment will have to be primarily psychiatric-pharmacological. The solution would be: 1) to add "psychology" or "psychotherapy" in the same parameter medical specialty; 2) to create a new parameter: "other specialty", where to add "psychology or "psychotherapy". How to fix this problem? --Dapifer (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikidata:Contact the development team --ValterVB (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that you can add in property medical specialty (P1995) value psychoanalysis (Q41630) or psychology (Q9418) (I don't know what is correct). --ValterVB (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is still far from being complete. There's no problem with adding multiple values. In the best case I would recommend to add the new value with a good reference of an academic paper that talks about how psychologists treat a given problem. ChristianKl () 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I would like to add another parameter, called "other spacilty" under "medical specialty". But I do not know how to do it.
@ValterVB:, scusami per aver sbagliato "posto", non sapevo dell'esistenza di questa pagina di servizio. Comunque, sì, se non riuscissi ad inserire il nuovo parametro, sarebbe il caso di aggiungere "psicoterapia" e/o "psicologia" al parametro "specializzazione medica". Grazie ancora. --Dapifer (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Rebranding of Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians by EveryPoliticianEdit

There is some discussion on Wikidata talk:WikiProject every politician with a member of EveryPolitician (see Wikidata:EveryPolitician) who wants to rename the project Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians and/or create a duplicate at Wikidata:Wikiproject every politician. It seems to me that it just matches more closely their website's name. The organization (and supposedly the contributor trying to rebrand this) is currently paid by WMF to do some import work of their data. Feel free to comment. --
--- Jura 21:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a subtle but important distinction between "paid by WMF to do some import work of their data" and "in receipt of a WMF project grant to support their work"; the latter being factual. Furthermore, it appears to be Jura who wants to rename the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Initially, I thought it needed renaming, but it appears that EveryPolitician just created a duplicate and wants to redirect the initial one. So practically it is Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians that is being rebranded.
--- Jura 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I've left a more detailed note at the EveryPolitician talkpage, but Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians doesn't really seem to exist - it's a dead page with no activity, few useful links, etc. I'm not sure what merging the project with activity into the one without any activity would achieve. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you stop misrepresent the reality please? First, you claim that a member of EveryPolitician wants to rename WikiProject Politicians to WikiProject every politician. In fact, as noted by Andy Mabbett, you started the discussion to do the contrary. Then, you claim that EveryPolitician duplicated WikiProject Politicians with WikiProject every politician. Check the history. EveryPolitician created both projects, WikiProject every politician first, which is only a renaming of Wikidata:EveryPolitician (yes, a redirect is missing), and WikiProject Politicians, which was never active. We know that you don't like EveryPolitician and that you don't care about breaking other people's work on this topic (« it has been incredibly disruptive and destructive », « work which you have now broken », etc.), but please, stop mislead people with a reality that is shared only by yourself. — Envlh (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
According to a paid contributor of EveryPolitician: "we created Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians before deciding to call it WikiProject every politician instead.". If you want to discuss the datamodel that EveryPolitician tried to introduce to Wikidata (with WMF grant money) and finally dropped, we can do that. Obviously, feel free to participate in the discussion: Wikidata_talk:EveryPolitician#too_much_specific_items_for_legislature_members.
--- Jura 07:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a degree of misunderstanding as what "EveryPolitician" is here. EveryPolitician is not an organisation — it's a project set up around three years ago by mySociety (Q10851773), a UK-based charitable civic-tech organisation, to try to create a database of every politician in the world, starting with gathering that data for (almost) every national level legislature. In the last year we have changed the focus of that project so that Wikidata can become that database, rather than us duplicating effort. As part of that we have received a WMF grant — but that is very much not about simply importing data from one project to the other (which is neither possible nor desirable). One strand of this is being able to track the quality of existing political information in Wikidata, to help see gaps and errors etc. We are currently doing that at Wikidata:WikiProject every politician. We had previously created an initial stub at Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians, but that was never used (or even known by anyone beyond Lucy and myself), and I believe this should be simply redirected. This is not us somehow trying to hijack a pre-existing project and rename it, as the initial description here could imply. This is us making a tentative start at one name, and then deciding to switch to one much more evocative of what we're actually hoping to achieve, similar to Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to correct, the import initially was at Wikidata:EveryPolitician (named as the website this comes).
--- Jura 08:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As has been explained earlier, that was set up in 2015 by Andrew Gray, to look at how to use the external mySociety project within Wikidata, long before the grant or the mySociety switch to making Wikidata the replacement approach (in fact it was that effort, and the things that we both learned from that, that led directly to this "reboot".) That earlier approach is largely obsolete now, as the goal is not to simply harmonise the two datasets, but to build a project and community within Wikidata to generate and maintain political data. --Oravrattas (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's worth mentioning that Wikidata:EveryPolitician is the page that was on the GBP 40,000 grant application (mw:Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician#Documentation).
I find it problematic that you keep deleting content from project documentation pages while it's being discussed in the forum.
To clearly differentiate WMF websites from EveryPolitician, I think we should restore the more appropriately named Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians and Wikidata:EveryPolitician.
--- Jura 08:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, obviously when we applied for the grant we pointed at the page that already existed and led us towards making the application, rather than the project that we didn't create until after receiving the grant. If any of the links in the project proposal or elsewhere are now confusing because they point to information that existed then, rather than now, we can easily change those links to point to historic versions of URLs, but as one of the problems you're raising is that duplication is confusing, reverting changes that try to harmonise things and clean everything up doesn't help matters much. --Oravrattas (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Links to previous versions of pages are helpful if the content evolved, they are only marginally useful when it was merged/moved and replaced by something else.
In the current situation, it seems that EveryPolitician amalgamates anything related under then name of its website. The result is that things are less structured than before the GBP 40,000 grant.
--- Jura 12:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Birth date of a geishaEdit

Dear community, I am not aware of the Wikidata rules that applied concerning the birth date of living people who do not want that others know it. If you know how we are supposed to manage such case, please let a message here. Pamputt (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As a starting point for discussion, the en.Wikipedia policy is here: en:Wikipedia:DOB, and says:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year,

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• The conclusion of enwiki is a bit odd, maybe US-centric. birthday (P3150) can be used if the full date shouldn't be included, but the day/month can. Some wikis routinely include that, but not the year.
In the current case, it seems that the date would be hard to reference. Maybe we could simply add the century.
--- Jura 11:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Her year of birth was included in the bibliographic information in the book she authored, and the Library of Congress had her full birthday at LCCN. Someone pretending to be her emailed them to have it deleted, or Fiona Graham herself was impersonating someone advocating on her behalf when they contacted me and told me they were going to write LCCN and have it removed. It is possible that all the SPAs that edit her English Wikipedia entry are her, I do not know. Both choices are disturbing. --RAN (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Living people (draft) does not include date of birth (P569) on its list of statements likely to violate privacy (or be challenged), but perhaps it should? This is the first example I'm aware of where data about a living person has been asked to be removed in this manner. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This is about w:Fiona Graham and she doesn't want people to know how old she is. A person wrote me asking me to remove the date in the English Wikipedia, because geishas do not reveal their age, and this person said they were advocating on the behalf of Graham. When I showed that the birth date was a matter of public record, they said they would get that record removed ... and they did! By pretending to be the geisha, or the geisha was pretending to be an independent advocate when they wrote me. So, identity deception does occur. That geisha's record has at least 10 SPAs editing it, they can be seen in red. Geishas may have a 100 year old rule about not revealing their age, but we need to follow the 2,000 year old rule that an encyclopedia should be complete and accurate. If you want the anonymity of a geisha life, then dno not become an author and reveal your age and your real name in a book. The SPA User:Lilly1985 is deleting the information here. The argument was that geishas do not reveal their age and since that did not get enough support, the argument has been reworded as to prevent identity theft. We all get old, deal with it. --RAN (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it leaves a big gap if we delete/oversight it. The only problem is that it's likely to be re-add unless some more general statements is added to Wikidata instead.
--- Jura 07:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm intrigued as to what is supposedly "US centric" about the quoted en.Wikipedia guideline. Can anyone enlighten us? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## Language codes revisitedEdit

Hoi, at this time the introduction of new codes to be used in Wikidata has all the outside qualifications of a stamp collection. There are no arguments given why particular codes are to be introduced. It is silly. It is silly particularly because with the introduction of Wiktionary data there will be an influx of codes that will have a known use; they are after all what Wiktionary offers at this time. For this reason I want us to stop adding codes unless there is a strong argument and concentrate on the needs for identifying Wiktionary content for the language, the dialect it is said to be. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not really understand what you are talking about. Do you have any link that points to a page where the problem is explained? Pamputt (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
#Monolingual language code creation process. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I get the point now. To reply to GerardM I do not see any relation between adding language code and Wikidata support for Wiktionary because from what I understood, Wiktionary lexeme would use Q-item for languages and dialects, not language code. Could you develop a bit more? Pamputt (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## ModifierEdit

What's the best way to create a WikiData item for modifying occupations? I'd like to distinguish assistant attorney general from attorney general, for example. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Just create it and make it a subclass of attorney general and instance of "position". Almost all of the cabinet level positions need to have their assistant level positions created. --RAN (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
We have United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Q7889546) and United States Secretary of the Treasury (Q4215834). Does anyone know of a better example showing the hierarchical structure of a cabinet level position with at least 4 layers with second assistants and third assistants? --RAN (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
One would think that they have their deputy level, and their assistant level, though those would be dynamic in time. An example.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## date of baptism in early childhood (Property:P1636)Edit

We have date of baptism in early childhood (P1636) but do we have "place of baptism in early childhood"? RAN (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but location (P276) qualifier is usually applied. (propolal failed) - Kareyac (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Works fine as a qualifier. The place of baptism is interesting and useful, though usually not of consequential value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## ModuleEdit

Anyone can help me create module(s) for Wikipedia, to take data from wikidata ? Xaris333 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe existing (Module:Wikidata (Q12069631), Module:Wikidata2 (Q25936424)) are acceptable, and look at Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects. - Kareyac (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I know that pages. I need specific module. Xaris333 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
For what? Maybe already exist. --ValterVB (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: I want a module to show the most recent value (according to point in time (P585)) of ranking (P1352) with the date in brackets. For example, Argentina national football team (Q79800) --> ranking (P1352). It must show "4 (16 October 2017)". (I don't want to use preferred option). Consider that determination method (P459) must always be FIFA World Rankings (Q180825). Xaris333 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Italian template it:Template:Wikidata based on Italian module it:Modulo:Wikidata can do it, you can see the result in my sandbox on Italian wiki: it:Utente:ValterVB/Sandbox/Temp. The first row show all the results, the second shou only the more recent. --ValterVB (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: Two problems. The main one is that your example is not considering that determination method (P459) must always be FIFA World Rankings (Q180825). Check your sandbox. Xaris333 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes but I used only standard template/module, I think that is easy modify the module for add a filter. --ValterVB (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: Yes. But I need a new module to do what I want. Can you help with this? Xaris333 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Not so expert but if I found something I ping you. --ValterVB (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)