Open main menu

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2019/07.


How can one customize permissions in a wikibase instance?Edit

I would like to know how to customize permissions on a wikibase instance created from docker. Is it possible? Any hint to some documentation?

What I would like is to have allow some groups of users to edit some items, while allowing other groups of users to only visualize/query the data.

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jelabra (talk • contribs).

How can I import properties from an ontology in a wikibase instance created with docker?Edit

Is it possible to import properties from an external ontology so I could use them in my own wikibase instance?

For example, if I wanted to use the property owl:disjointWith from OWL in my own wikibase instance, how could I do it?

I saw that I could create my own properties, but I would also like to use other properties from external ontologies.

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jelabra (talk • contribs).

Adding missing labels or descriptions in one or multiple languagesEdit

Hi everyone, I notice on my watchlist we have a quite a few people working on filling missing labels or descriptions for Wikidata items. It's very good that this missing data is added, but it's a lot of single edits, this report is dominated by these edits. Would it be feasible to cluster this so that a lot of missing labels and descriptions get updated at the same time? Might take a bit more time to setup, but the robot could just be scheduled to run every once in a while so that new items get updated too. You would only have to setup it once. Multichill (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we could move to more structured way of doing things, e.g. Wikidata:Property_proposal/default_description_for_instances.
Also, maybe a nl label isn't needed for an article with an English title, at least when it merely copies the English label. "an article" here means >20,000,000 million items. --- Jura 16:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Every item on Wikidata should have a Dutch label and a Dutch description. The descriptions shouldn't be one dimensional (copy of the instance) most of the time. For example for artists we combine the country and the occupation to get something like "Nederlands kunstschilder" ("Dutch painter") and for works of art the type of work and the creator to get something like "schilderij van Vincent van Gogh" ("painting by Vincent van Gogh"). Often these kind of descriptions need to be tweaked a bit. Doesn't look like this new property is going to help a lot here. Multichill (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
In general, I agree. For articles, I don't think the nl-label is efficient or useful. Have a look at Q57665075. --- Jura 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Every item on Wikidata should (ultimately) have a label and description in every language, IMHO. How we get there is a good question. - PKM (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is that? Why would it be needed for items while it's not needed for other entities? Can you explain why the nl-label needs to duplicate the en-label at Q57665075? --- Jura 22:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I share the sentiment that every item and property on Wikidata should ultimately have a label and description in every language (having the same question of how to get there coming to mind often), but I do agree with you, @Jura1:, that the duplication of the en label in the nl field is questionable and possibly outright incorrect. I think a better nl label would render the title of the article entirely in Dutch rather than preserving the original English. I wonder how many such nl labels are carried over from bracketed en labels (where the bracketing indicates that the label was translated from another language). Mahir256 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps there should be a label for every item in every language, but mass creating misleading or bad labels via bot is not the solution. See for example [1], just one example of an often-repeated problem. In this instance, a Polish translation of an Ancient Greek play is described as "edition of/from Sophocles". Compare that description with the English description "1916 Polish translation by Kazimierz Morawski". The Dutch description does not distinguish the item from any other "edition of/from Sophocles". It also (incorrectly) implies that Sophocles was responsible for the edition, or perhaps that there is only a single work by Sophocles, neither of which is the case. The data item is for a Polish translation made by Morawski, and the language into which the translation was made is of central importance for the identification of the data item, yet it is not mentioned in the Dutch description. As a result, we have a very poor description added en masse by bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Mass introduction of mistakes by bots should be avoided, but an occasional mistake can happen. This is still a wiki so you can always improve something.
Can we go in small baby steps? Take for example this edit by Liridon. We could invest some time to figure out between what languages names can safely be copied like for example this edit by Sjoerd. Multichill (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Sjoerd, i'm not sure what the problem with that edit is? Would you kindly elaborate? --Trade (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
What's your opinion on the 20,000,000 items for articles and their labels in Dutch? --- Jura 11:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The unused ones should be deleted? The whole concept of having items for citations was nice until some people hijacked the concept and turned Wikidata in an unused scientific article dumping ground. Multichill (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: The problem with this edit, is that it is hard for a software to do that. If the origin of the persons name would have been from russian or another non-latin alphabet, you cannot copy the label from one language with latin script to another. You have a similair problem with descriptions. We have added "instance of:asteroid" to thousands of items. And they also have that description in many many languages. But what should I do when I discover that this was not at all an instance of:asteroid? I can easily change the statement, but not the bad descriptions. Since I do not know many langauges, I can only delete them, but even that is hard work. So, please let them be! Concentrate on languages and subjects where people do not read English very well. I doubt you have such problems in Dutch-speaking areas. From experience I know that we do well in Swedish speaking areas. And you are not dumber than us. Au contraire! IP (Hej!) 19:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Here is another example where it probably went bad. His name according to P1559 was Bengt Oxienstierna. Bengt Oxienstierna is most likely the better label, but instead we have copied a text that in practise adds the Patronymicon as a separator. IP (Hej!) 08:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
And here an example of bad script-adding of descriptions. IP (Hej!) 13:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: there's the solution for articles: I've proposed a month ago Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/06#Multilanguage_label. --Infovarius (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
It's somewhat different. The English article could still have a (translated) title in Dutch. Your proposal sounds much like one of mine you didn't support earlier ;) Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Names#New_datatype:_monostring_item --- Jura 18:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Property for higher order metaclassEdit

We currently have

  • A is instance of B (A is order one lower)
  • A is subclass of B (A is same order as B)

Is there a property that allows A to be one level higher? I think this would be quite useful. It allows one to define vague things (a higher order metaclass) in terms of more concrete things.

For example, we can say something like

"A dish is a class of subclasses of food."

Here "class of subclasses" is the temporary name of such a property. What this is saying is that instances of "dish" are subclasses of "food". So for example, "sauerbraten" is an instance of "dish". From the property above, we deduce that "sauerbraten" is a subclass of "food".

The current way these items are set up, this example doesn't work. But I think this is an extremely useful property to have. "Dish" is in some senses more abstract (here, it is an order 2 metaclass). On its item page, you'd want to know how it is defined in terms of things that are more concrete, in this case "food" (an order 1 metaclass, and a subclass of "physical object").

--Johnmichaelwu (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea - maybe you should create a property proposal for this where we can discuss in detail? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
We also have metasubclass of (P2445)   for stuffs with the same order which are not subclasses of each other, but their instances are (taxon ranks, for example).
I think there is current practice for this is to use a of (P642)   qualifier sometimes, I would not be surprised to find
< dish > subclass of (P279)   < class >
of (P642)   < food >
< dish > instance of (P31)   < first order metaclass >
of (P642)   < food >
. But maybe a new property is better indeed. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Orders are a tricky business. It's hard to reason about them for people who are new to ontology and modeling decisions are often subjective in nature (often there are decision to be made about which aspects should are most important to the modelling). It's not clear to me why subclass of (P279) isn't enough for the relationship between food and dish. ChristianKl❫ 14:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Per-statement protectionEdit

Several other Wikimedia projects are (validly) concerned about the reliability of information on this project. There is much information on here that should not be changed, such as people's birthdates, and yet the only way to protect such statements is to protect the whole item. For some highly-visible items, this should not be the case. I'm hoping I'm not the only one in favor of allowing protection at this level of granularity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue just seems to be that the development team does not consider this a priority (I know I've informally raised this to them at least once). --Rschen7754 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Birthdates are not a good example. There are still many errors, partly caused by the fact that the method of inserting julian/gregorian dates changed on the run, many others just because the sources don't indicate which calendar they use. The possibility to correct a date, to add another value (with a reliable source, of course) to add a source or to change rank should stay open.--Shlomo (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the concerns about reliability: Protecting an item or a statement doesn't improve reliability, it just increases stability. If you protect a bad-sourced or misleading statement, it would more probably stay bad-sourced or misleading, because you'd reduce the set of people who are able and willing to do something to improve it. The reliability problem relates more to where the data come from. A nonnegligible (to put it mildly) part of data comes via robotic additing from unreliable and/or unindicated sources. Any perceptible progress in this issue would have much more impact on other WM projects perception of Wikidata than making editing more difficult for newcomers and occasional editors.--Shlomo (talk) 05:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
@Shlomo: Your criticism of my birthdates example is simply a red herring (i.e. irrelevant); the point being made still stands. Do not confuse this with blanket semi-protection, which there was somewhat of a consensus for (see the recent RfC), but which I opposed. Presumably, the per-statement protection would be applied after multiple instances of the correct value (as deemed by consensus and sourcing, not just any value) of that statement being changed to the wrong value.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a great idea which will help indeed to solve many issues, however, I am afraid, the bottleneck are the developers. We can consider trying to make it to the next year Community wishlist, but this would require a serious lobbying work on the projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
See phab. --Jklamo (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be good to see a usecase for this. The birthday sample is somewhat suboptimal: either there are references for various dates and they all should be added or there additional references for the same date and they could also be added. Maybe a filter disallowing changes to the date would be the better solution. --- Jura 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The example that popped to my mind is the claim that hydrogen (Q556) has atomic number (P1086) 1, which is unambiguously provably to be absolutely right and which is never going to change. (And similarly for the atomic numbers of the other ~117 elements, of course.)
There are a lot of external ID numbers which I think fall into somewhat the same category. {Wikipedia has some mechanism for tagging those as "verified", although I've never dug into the details.) —Scs (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: You are missing the entire point of my example, which is to protect the birthdate statement after we have referenced it and solidified it to the correct, reliable, value. Creating a myriad of filters would not be scalable and would bog down everyone's editing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Provide a better sample then. Even if a statement has a reference, it can use better references. --- Jura 14:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be useful to have the ability to give per-statement protection but it costs development resources. Given that statement-signing is part of the yearly roadmap for Wikidata I however don't think that it's best to push for per-statement protection right now. Let's see how statement-signing works first and afterwards we might discuss about the best way to do protection. Maybe we end up with some way where signed statements by specific sources are semi-protected. ChristianKl❫ 07:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • No amount of statement signing would obviate the clear use for per-statement protection at Q15925869, where I have had to protect the whole item just because some spambots are targeting one particular statement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat related, it would be better if we can do per label/desc/alias language-protection: See Sea of Japan (Q27092)'s history for example. — regards, Revi 14:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

To disambiguate or not to disambiguateEdit

If an item is a disambiguation page in some projects and normal article in other projects, how does Wikidata decide whether it's a disambiguation or not? Example: Q292934. Bennylin (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bennylin: They're different concepts so should be split into different items. Someone needs to go through all the sitelinks and decided what concept they represent. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes they are indeed the same concepts, just some have template "disambig" and the others not. Randomly. --Infovarius (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata read-only period on July 30 at roughly 05:00 AM UTCEdit

This was already mentioned in Wikidata weekly summary #372, but I'd just like to highlight that there's a read-only period for Wikidata on July 30. We need to replace the primary database master: the old one is old and out of warranty, and we need a new one of continue the wb_terms redesign.

This means that the wiki can be read but not edited. The read-only window is 05:00AM UTC to 05:30 AM UTC, but if everything goes well the actual period of no editing will be shorter. When editing on Wikidata, it will be apparent that the changes are not working; you can read phab:T227063#5323866 to follow the discussion about how to best solve the problem when someone moves a page on another Wikimedia wiki.

If you've got any questions, please ping me. If I can't answer, I'll try to find someone who can. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

2019-07-30 05:00~05:30 UTC in your timezone — regards, Revi 12:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This should stay till the readonly window is complete. — regards, Revi 05:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Torture type, Confession dates/locations and the Kartographer extensionEdit

Hi, further to our ongoing work taking information from the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft database, we are looking at how to model the types of torture endured by the accused witches in this period (1563 to 1736) and how this could be incorporated into Wikidata. The information on the torture type is described as "this field records the types of torture used in witchcraft investigations. Torture was the application of measured pain in order to coerce a person to provide information. None of these tortures seem to have been technically judicial torture." As previous Project Chat discussions revolved around whether the torture was judicial or extrajudicial I'm wondering where we could go from here to model this information? A new property perhaps? In addition we are looking at different methods of visualisation the geographical elements from the database now that we have added 3,100 places of residence to Wikidata for these accused witches along with 543 places of detention. Simon Cobb has suggested the Kartographer extension might be one way to go. Does anyone have experience of working with this extension or could maybe suggest where we could find out more about it and how to use it? Very best, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  • We do have penalty (P1596) but it seems like that property isn't what you are looking for. It might be that we do need a new property. Before making a proposal it would be valuable to look at how this kind of information is modeled out there in the world to find a good solution that works beyond the needs of your particular project. It's worth investigating whether organizations such as Amnesty International have a standardized way to record this information. ChristianKl❫ 16:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks. Have raised with Amnesty International as to whether they think 'manner of torture' would be an appropriate Property name given what they record. Will let you know their response.Stinglehammer (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi ChristianKl, have had a reply from Amnesty as follows:

We would normally categorise torture in line with UN descriptions - how much detail we record and/or make public depends on the circumstances and individual cases. The facts are sometimes stated when we discuss the experiences of individuals such as Moses Akatugba who, while imprisoned in Nigeria, experienced torture such as having his finger nails pulled out by police. Here are a couple of overview pages including official torture thresholds/descriptions:[2][3]. We are calling for clearer definitions of torture [4]. Agree it’s important to highlight the level of suffering someone experiences due to torture but we may not always describe explicitly due to concerns about who can access the information, is it exploitative or triggering etc. This might not be what you were after but do give me a shout if I can help with anything else.

  • My sense is that we do need a new property to cover 'method of torture' or 'manner of torture' as it will be applicable in historic and modern instances and many of the values will be ones that already exist or be useful if they do need creating. Thoughts? Stinglehammer (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that the linked document speaks of "Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" it seems to me that we need a hypernym that not only encompasses torture but also "other treatment and punishment". I do agree that it would be good to have a property proposal. We can also have the discussion about what might be a good term (e.g. the hypernym) on that proposal page. ChristianKl❫ 13:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Property proposal created here. We do also have rich information on date of confession and location of confession. Is it worth considering properties for place of confession and date of confession? Stinglehammer (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Commons P180 and Wikidata:NotabilityEdit

If a user uploads an image to Commons and uses the depicts (P180) field, is it acceptable to create a new item for a person (or thing) that would normally fall outside of Wikidata:Notability? U+1F360 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I would say this is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, for me clearly acceptable & generally highly desirable under criteria 3: It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This is equivalent to saying that every detail of every photo ever uploaded to Commons is notable. I do not see how this follows from our notability policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes for the reasons stated by Tagishsimon. Also when paired with relative position within image (P2677) and/or instance of (P31) this allows for labeling items within the image which can be useful for a number of tasks. Example  ElanHR (talk) 02:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we should be cautious here, because a commons photo can depict anything and anyone. So allowing automatic notability provides a wide open gate to anything. I generally favour inclusion on wd, but this looks too broad to me. I drafted the relevant paragraph on Commons, which encourages users to be as specific as they can be, given the existing set of WD options (rather than listing everything it is a subclass of), but this proposal would go even deeper, with no clear limit. --99of9 (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the intention of the structural needs paragraph is to speak about the structural needs of Wikidata and not of Commons. ChristianKl❫ 07:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I think if the person on a photo is not notable in Wikidata the photo can also get deleted on Commons, because it is out of scope there. If the identity of the person on the photo is not notable it dose not need the person as depicts (P180), then can human (Q5) just be use there. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The trick, as always, is where to draw a line on notability. On the English-language Wikipedia, much to my amazement, members of the 9-member city council of the city of Seattle are not considered inherently notable, but anyone who ever competed in the Olympics is.
How notable does a band have to be before each of its members is individually notable? Is a person known mainly for always being in the lead of an annual parade in some city notable? On Commons, certainly both of those merit being individually called out in describing what the picture depicts, though as thing stand we might not give them a cagegory. - Jmabel (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The notion that we explicitly “draw lines” w.r.t. notability in Wikimedia projects is not ideal in my opinion as there is a much more important condition: we consider an entity to be notable if there is serious coverage about it somewhere outside of the Wikimedia world; that usually excludes user-generated content sources, sources that are under control of the entity to be described, and some others. Wikipedias do indeed have to be a little more rigorous about notability, as the question about which source is serious enough can be debated. As a practical approach, they do it indeed by somewhat arbitrarily “drawing lines” as an auxiliary measure. Here at Wikidata, the notability policy is designed in a way that external coverage about an entity is accessible realtively easily from each item, i.e. by references, identifiers, or connected Wikipedia articles (which themselves are usually backed by sources). The structural need criterion is an exception, but this term not well defined and it is generally not a good idea to rely on it alone if notability is questionable.
The problem with Commons content is that practically all the auxiliary information in that project beyond the files themselves, i.e. the information which is now gradually being transfered to SDC/Wikidata, is not backed by any sources—contrary to most other Wikimedia projects. One could of course semi-automatically transfer a reasonable amount of information to Wikidata by creating new items based on existing information at Commons, just for the sake of having it described in a structured manner. However, those items would be unsourced, and it is in fact very difficult to work with them if they are not linked against external sources; from Wikidata perspective, unsourced content is pretty much dead and unverifyable content, as most community members are not able to work with such items. Some Wikidata editors also fear that the possibility to have unsourced content in Wikidata would be exploited for undesired purposes which would be much more difficult to control. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a newbie here, so take my opinion with a big grain of salt, but my thinking is that it depends on whether the image uploaded at Commons is a work that is notable here. If a notable (by WD standards) painting depicts someone who is not notable, it may be worth creating an item about that person so that the item about the painting is more useful. If the image uploaded at commons is some random photo, I don't think we want an item about someone random in that photo. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That distinction seems like a reasonable one to consider, because it implies a direct structural need. --99of9 (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess whatever is worth naming in a label on Wikipedia or Commons could be worth having items for here. And they do not label random people neither on Commons or on Wikipedia, only because they accidently can be found in i picture next to something notable enough to have a Commons-category or WP-article. IP (Hej!) 07:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two ways to look at this: is something notable *because* it was depicted? No, that would be too much. Can you create a new item because you need it to add a P180/depicted? Probably yes, but not always. I would also suggest to only add P180 to pictures on Commons where it would make sense to search for, and it would be useful in a search result. A very small church in the far background of the image will not make sense in a search result for "church". Edoderoo (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Do we have any examples of what people think are poor entries, that violate Wikidata notability? Is this about people sneaking themselves in, or making entries for their favorite coffee cup? Some examples would be helpful. --RAN (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion and sourcesEdit

Hello. I have removed religion (P140) ->atheism (Q7066) from Demetris Christofias (Q57334). @Ghuron: undo it "because included in the Category:Atheists (Q8985993)". The statement has no source (imported from Wikimedia project (P143) -> Serbian Wikipedia (Q200386) is not a source). I have tried to find a source that 1) he said that was atheism or 2) importance sources that said that he was atheism, but nothing. So why to have the statement just because he is included in the Category:Atheists (Q8985993). If it helps, Demetris Christofias (Q57334) was buried after an orthodox christian ceremony [5], but I have found no source that he said that was an orthodox christian or an importance source that claimed that he was orthodox christian. So, I believe that we can not add anything with religion (P140). Xaris333 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xaris333: why we cannot do this? --Ghuron (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not contributing in Serbian Wikipedia (Q200386), I don't know the language. :) Xaris333 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither do I, but google translate is enough to understand that there are no sources there that support atheism of Demetris Christofias (Q57334). Please let me know if you see any other my erroneous edits --Ghuron (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Given that religion (P140) is privacy sensitive I oppose adding it based category pages of Wikipedia. It should only be added if you can provide a source. Via our privacy policy it's clear that when there's a conflict the burden of proof is with the person who wants the information to be listed. ChristianKl❫ 19:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe WD:BLP#Bot interaction with items for living persons should apply here given automatic nature of this job. — regards, Revi 10:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

archive url and archive dateEdit

archive URL (P1065) and archive date (P2960) are Wikidata property to indicate a source (Q18608359). Is there a property constraint that, if the source have the one then must have the other too? And if yes, do you believe we have to add that constraint? Xaris333 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Or where can I suggest the creation of that type of constraint? Xaris333 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

  • In sources, I think "retrieved date" is the one more likely to be used. --- Jura 13:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok. But I think that has nothing to do with my question. Xaris333 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jura1: Where can I ask for such constraint to create? Xaris333 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Improbable birth date added for AugustusEdit

In this edit Sergey kudryavtsev added the date 23 September 63 BCE as the birth date of Augustus (Q1405), and marked it as belonging to the Julian calendar (or accepted the default). Although this date can be found in sources, such as it is highly probable this date is in the w:Roman calendar. Due to irregular insertion of intercalary months and a lack of records concerning when these months were added, it is usually impossible to accurately convert a Roman calendar date to either of the two calendars that can be used in Wikidata, proleptic Gregorian calendar (Q1985727) or proleptic Julian calendar (Q1985786). I believe the edits should be reverted. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

As you described it, it looks to me like the main problem is the use of unspecified calendar; assumed Julian (Q26877143)? Why (instead of a complete removal) then not simply change it to something like "unspecified calendar, assumed roman" or only "unspecified calendar". IP (Hej!) 07:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
The only calendars that are supported by Wikidata software are proleptic Gregorian calendar (Q1985727) or proleptic Julian calendar (Q1985786). These are the only two calendars that can be specified in Wikidata whenever a date is required. Using unspecified calendar (Q18195782) would be appropriate if it is uncertain which of the two allowable calendars is meant by a source. But it is not appropriate when the most likely calendar is one that is not supported by Wikidata.
If we look at w:Augustus we see that paragraph 5 footnote a of Suetonius is cited as the source. I personally would not want to cite a 2000-year-old source, and I have not had a chance to visit the library to find something better. The translator's footnote says in relevant part "The 23rd of September was Augustus's birthdate in the calendar of the time. It was, however, out of whack with the seasons, as is proved by the frequent statement in ancient authors that his birth sign was Capricorn; some modern writers state that Capricorn was the sign under which he was conceived." Since the "calendar of the time" was the Roman calendar, and since the Roman calendar was known to be out of whack with the astrological/astronomical signs (no distinction between those fields back then) while the Julian calendar was in reasonable agreement, it's highly probable the date is a Roman calendar date. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Jc3s5h: Could you use Help:Ranking when making such advance date editing? Otherwise people are likely to re-add the date and you are likely to feel they missed your point. --- Jura 13:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    I have considered that. Considering the quality and explicitness of the source I found, I should probably make the statement preferred rank.
    If I were going to mark a value as depricated, I would like to have
    1. A source that says the wrong value is widespread but wrong, or
    2. A superficially reliable source that clearly gives the wrong value (for example, clearly says August was born 23 September 63 B.C. in the Julian calendar, together with a better source included via the statement disputed by (P1310) property which contradicts the wrong value. (I didn't know about statement disputed by (P1310), thanks for pointing me in that direction.
    I am not aware of a source for the Augustus birth date issue that satisfies the criteria I would like.
    Jc3s5h (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The idea is to input values found in sources (or an interpretation of the source) and then rank them. By default, everything should get normal rank. If some are clearly wrong or require additional references, I'd deprecate these. Then it's an editorial choice which of the normally ranked ones should get preferred rank. Sometimes, there is a clear choice for that, sometimes not. --- Jura 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • If a calendar is whacky, how does that matter? The Swedish calendar was whacky, the transit from julian to gregorian calendar was whacky. We still add extra seconds from time to time, so our calendar is still whacky. The constant shifts between normal and daylight saving time is whacky. Even if it does not have the precision of a atomic clock (Q227467), the roman calendar was still the general accepted method to measure time. What is strange about that? Very recently, the definition of kilogram (Q11570) changed. Last time I checked (at it was some years ago) the definition of volt (Q25250) was very whacky. If I remember correctly, that was why mains electricity (Q387400) changed when we joined the EU. IP (Hej!) 17:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Orcid NumberEdit

How is the number 4.506.903 at Property talk:P496 generated/retrieved? The orcid website says there are 6.792.120 IDs. Steak (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Steak: I think Module:Property documentation gets it from the ORCID iD (P496) number of records (P4876) statement(s). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, right, thanks. Steak (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy between gradient propertiesEdit

I notice that average gradient (P2198) has a constraint to be between values of 0 and 1 (enforcing a normalised form). Meanwhile maximum gradient (P2595) doesn't have this constraint and allows for units of percentage (Q11229) or per mille (Q181011).

It seems to me that both properties should follow the second approach since a gradient can be specified in multiple ways. Perhaps dimensionless unit (Q1618549) could be added as another allowed value for explicit use of dimensionless normalised form (or is it better to use no value?). --SilentSpike (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  • @Smalyshev (WMF): could we add a conversion on query server for both as we do for SI units? --- Jura 20:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Would we need to define Q199 = 1 Q199 for every (Wikidata) unitless quantity? --- Jura 22:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Unknown value plus stated asEdit

How do I input this? I want to have "Lilian H. Zirpolo" as the editor at Historical Dictionary of Baroque Art and Architecture (Q65621317), similar to how it is done at The Welsh Academy encyclopaedia of Wales (Q56848446). But if I only put the qualifier and no value under editor, it doesn't let me save. What am I missing? Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you couldn't save this. I added the "stated as" qualifier with no problem. The best solution is to create an item for Lilian H. Zirpolo - she's in VIAF - and delete the existing author name string statement and change the editor to the new item. The Cradle tool author form and Authority Control gadget make this really easy. - PKM (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Letter-digits or numeral lettersEdit

How to model letters (usually of old alphabets) which were used as a numerals? The brightest examples are Coptic (Q65599830) and (Q65600159) which are even not used as usual letters. Other example is Cyrillic alphabet which letters were used as numerals some time ago (Cyrillic numerals (Q491668)) or Greek numerals (Q108645) or other Q4063087. I want to add numeric value (P1181) but it constrained to some quantity. I've added numerical digit (Q82990) to widen the constraint but I doubt now. Not all digits (ex. positional) have predefined numerical value. What are (Q65599830) and (Q65600159) after all? Some new class? --Infovarius (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, shouldn't we have all these digits as items, separate from Arabic numeral (Q29961325)? --Infovarius (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
What's wrong with eg ג (Q15074) numeric value (P1181) "3", perhaps with qualifier subject has role (P2868) = numerical digit (Q82990); or L (Q9927) numeric value (P1181) "50" with qualifier subject has role (P2868) = Roman numerals (Q38918) ? Jheald (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
It might make sense to have separate items for the numeric meanings of these symbols? At least for the Cyrillic and Greek cases they do have specific numeric values (in the range 1 - 900). I'm not familiar with the Coptic case, do you have a reference on that? Jheald's solution seems fine to me also. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


At Frederick George Shaw (Q63985101) a bot keeps removing that his sport is fishing, any idea how it should be structured to remain? --RAN (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vanbasten 23: --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
There is an item for fishing as a sport: recreational fishing (Q283534) --Bluemask (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
That solves it! --RAN (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2019 (
The bot "understands" that "fishing" is not a sport, but if you have to put recreational fishing (Q283534) I can configure it to change one thing for another. Thanks and sorry. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The bot might understand but I don't! Surely there should only be one recreational fishing item. All sports are recreational activities - we don't have separate items for (for example) professional netball as a sport as opposed to netball as a hobby. Shouldn't these two be merged? (It does make sense to keep the occupation of non-recreational fishing a separate item). Waggers (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
FYI, what the bot was removing was the entry for "fishing" generally that comprises both recreational and commercial fishing. See fishing (Q14373) The issue of there being two recreational fishing items is a different topic. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the difference between recreational fishing (Q283534) and recreational fishing (Q5493838) both have Finnish definitions and I am not using Chrome today so I do not have auto-translate available. --RAN (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): After investigation, it looks to me like Finnish Wikipedia treats recreational fishing (Q5493838) as recreational fishing and recreational fishing (Q283534) as sports/competitive fishing, though I might be wrong. recreational fishing (Q5493838) says something to the effect of "done mostly to acquire experience". Circeus (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Familysearch now has a landing page for entries on people, for users who are not logged in, using the standard Familysearch ID: Should we change the url formatter to this new version? Here is the old version and what you see when not registered, or registered but not logged in: What do you think? --RAN (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Support makes sense to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  Support instead of replacing it, perhaps just add the new value with preferred rank (since the old formatter is still valid)? --SilentSpike (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
When I am logged in to Familysearch and I click on the url to the new style landing page, at the top is a link to login (despite already being logged in). When I click on the login button, it automatically directs me to the old url displaying the full data. So, it may not be necessary to have both. The new link redirects to the old link once logged in. --RAN (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Inverse PropertiesEdit

I would argue that child (P40) is not inverse of (P1696) of father (P22) and mother (P25). Reason: By "A child (P40) B." you can not conclude that "B father (P22) A.".

Also, father (P22) and mother (P25) are not inverse of (P1696) of child (P40), because inverse of (P1696) is a symmetric property. Wiljes (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we also have a lot of subproperties which are not really subproperties at all. I think those statements are barely used in practice, so this is probably a big mess overall. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate pageEdit

Q13183538 and Q56379325 are for same person. Please merge Q13183538 into Q56379325. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done by VIGNERON--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2019 (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) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject RandomEdit

I quite enjoy adding statements and sources to random items - you come across some interesting stuff and it's rewarding to see an item become much more fleshed out.

With that in mind, I decided to make Wikidata:WikiProject_Random as I think it could be an interesting way to collaborate. Check it out and fire away on the discussion page if you think anything could be improved! --SilentSpike (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@SilentSpike: How is this different in spirit from the Wikidata:Flashmob? Mahir256 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I was not aware of that project - probably because the name is not easy to find. Thanks for bringing it to my attention --SilentSpike (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
After reading the page I would say the difference with this project is:
  1. The goal is really trying to flesh things out with sources/statements/constraints rather than just labels and descriptions. Encouraging research on the random topics.
  2. It's not anonymous and ideally collaborative discussion would be more encouraged - making use of the talk page.
  3. The method is to randomly generate items once per week rather than summoning a group by an individual. This means there's consistently new things to check out each week and it's an unbiased selection process.
With all of that said, the spirit of the idea is similar. I'd been looking for a project like the flashmob so thanks again! --SilentSpike (talk) 07:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Shall we use on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008) for this? --- Jura 16:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Is there an advantage to that approach? I would think that property is more to mark a long-term interest in items (which perhaps we should). --SilentSpike (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
      • We could query to see how they evolve, at least for L and Qs. --- Jura 08:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Flashmob still active? - PKM (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Retrieving a QID from a DOI query?Edit

Is there a template to return a wikidata QID from a given DOI?

  • e.g. {{DOI_to_QID|10.1101/102046}} → Q28529449

I'm looking to implement something in Wikipedia and WikiJournals to return various Wikidata parameters of a publication given only the DOI. Thanks in advance. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: You can do it with a query (example), but I don’t think it’s possible in Wikitext. --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't a Lua module, which the template would then call, workable? Circeus (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
You have to search for it, e.g. haswbstatement:P356=10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0029797. You can do that by bot or query, but I don't think it can be done by Lua. The best you can do is probably something like en:Template:Cite Q, which takes the Wikidata ID as the parameter and returns the rest of the article information. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, TweetsFactsAndQueries, TweetsFactsAndQueries, Circeus: Is that a fundamental limitation of the wikitext/lua language or just something that hasn't yet been implemented? It seems that part of the reason Cite Q isn't used is that looking up the QID is an extra hassle if you only know the doi/pmid. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Mostly the latter. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Item associated with this personEdit

At one time I thought there was a field for an image with a field name something like "item associated with this person". What was the proper name, or did I imagine it? For instance it might contain an image of an article of clothing they wore from a museum. --RAN (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

There's related image (P6802). - PKM (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Statement displayEdit

Is there a gadget or user script which allows statements and their qualifiers to be visualized and edited in a table layout? Something like this?

Property Values Qualifier 1 Qualifier 2 Sources Edit
item item item; item 2 [show]  
item item 2 [show]  
item 8 items [show] 2 [show]  

For certain properties this would probably make it a lot easier to add multiple statements without having to make a QuickStatements batch. (It takes a lot of time just to select qualifiers, especially in the British English locale because some properties' labels don't load properly.) I don't know if this sort of thing exists yet, though. Jc86035 (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at Tabernacle? Here's an example with qualifiers and references.
If you use a list of items or a query, you can drag-and-drop statements from one to another.- PKM (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't; thanks for linking to that. I'll try it out at some point. Jc86035 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral policyEdit

Hello, I want to point out that draft of behavioral policy is out now, it would be great if people review this and raise their points before this moves forward. Amir (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

List of missing labelsEdit

According to thread WikiProject Random above I wanted to ask if there are lists of items with missing labels sorted by field (music, video games, films etc.). Eurohunter (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Eurohunter: You can use Wikidata Terminator for that. Esteban16 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Esteban16: It doesn't works (it stuck at "Getting item candidates") and there is no way to choose field of interest. Eurohunter (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Eurohunter: The tool seems to has an issue. You can pick the property and value of your choice in any language and it'll display the results (e.g. instance of (P31) -> video game (Q7889)). Esteban16 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about a sorted list, but there is Special:EntitiesWithoutLabel. You can find these kind of lists at Wikidata:Database_reports. --SilentSpike (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

maintained by WikiProject (P6104) on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)Edit

What is the difference between maintained by WikiProject (P6104) and on focus list of Wikimedia project (P5008)? Could they be merged? Eurohunter (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Q49324903 and Q7641353 - duplicate?Edit

Both these items seem to refer to the same place but have different GeoNames IDs. Are they still considered duplicates? Ixfd64 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Sheila AtimEdit

Hi, I'm pretty new to this, but it looks like Sheila Atim (Q61989847) and Sheila Atim (Q65115171) both refer to the same person. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes; merged. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2019 (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) 10:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Languages on labels listEdit

How to edit (translate) names on languages on labels list? Some of them are not translated. ~ Eurohunter (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I like using the WE-Framework gadget. Of course, why editing labels in different languages aren't enabled by default is beyond me. --Trade (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: I mean something different. For example if you ad "fr" it tell it's "French" instead of name in your language - "Französische"/"francés"/"fransk"/"francuski" etc. (French is already translated but some languages not, it refers mostly to "rare languages"). Btw. WE-Framework looks intersting. Can I install it on ENwiki or at Wikidata? Eurohunter (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I wish Wikidata would just use the name of items in english when it doesn't have a label in your native language instead of giving you a bunch of numbers. I'm pretty sure WE-Framework works on both ENwiki and Wikidata. I mostly use it as an replacement for QuickStaments since i haven't figured out how to use it. --Trade (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Music festivalsEdit

Hi, anyone experience working on music festivals? I looked around and couldn't find any really good examples so I expanded Pinkpop 2019 (Q58329019). It contains things like where it was, when it was, who was playing, how much it costed and amount of people (once that data becomes available). Anything missing? Some points I ran into:

What do you think? Anything missing or should be improved? On User:Multichill/Pinkpop I created an overview of all editions. Multichill (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I use the gadget Recoin which suggests a number of additional properties. The most important I'd say is: organizer (P664). - Kosboot (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Kosboot: Good point, I skipped it because it was this tiny organisation (Buro Pinkpop (Q65720246)) that mostly focuses on the festival. Added now. Also added presenter (P371). Multichill (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. If one uses a value in part of the series (P179) probably it shouldn't be in instance of (P31) as well. --- Jura 14:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: I looked at that when I was expanding the item and decided to do both. High profile items like Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (Q9095390) and 2018 US Open (Q50391517) are also done like that. Bit of redundancy doesn't hurt I guess. Multichill (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I have removed them and added part of the series (P179) if neede. Eurohunter (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, the tennis stuff is somewhat complicated ;)
    To determine if one wants to use music festival edition (Q41582469) or not, it might be interesting to see if the properties used on these instances are similar to the generic festival edition (Q27968043) or not. --- Jura 16:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Other festivals, Tour de France, etc., it's all using instance of (P31).
@Eurohunter: please don't remove valid statements especially when conversation is ongoing and the removal is disputed. Multichill (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: If they are obviously incorrect they should be removed (it was known before this discussion). You should notice that they are not valid. Eurohunter (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Huh? You're disputing the fact that the festival took place in June 2019? Multichill (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
No but there is already start time and end time. Eurohunter (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Both time and space can be represented in multiple ways. Having one representation doesn't mean you should remove the other one. Multichill (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You should add references otherwise data is unreliable. Eurohunter (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated values for the same propertyEdit

Can anyone explain why it is possible to have duplicated values for the same property? [6] [7] -- Meisam (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Meisam: Sometimes this can be appropriate; for example, a person may hold an office twice. Although the qualifiers should be different in such cases, because the Wikidata website submits complex changes as multiple edits, I don't think it would be feasible to prevent this without that behaviour (and similar behaviour in third-party editing software) being changed. Jc86035 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Because nothing is preventing you from doing that. We validate after the item is saved. In this case I would expect a single value constraint (Q19474404), but Eurohunter completely removed that constraint. Not sure why because it had only 4 violations so these could easily be listed as exceptions or it could be turned into a suggestion constraint (Q62026391). I would restore it. Multichill (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a bot that cleans out some of the unneeded statements. --- Jura 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for the explanations. You are right! With the current interface (complex edits being split into multiple smaller ones) it is not possible to automatically prevent this. The bots have to do the clean-up for now. -- Meisam (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Invalid archive linksEdit

I've just added a format constraint to archive URL (P1065), and it seems that there are a lot of concerning invalid URLs (at least, ones which don't match the regular expression). Examples:

GreenC's bot usually fixes these sorts of things on certain Wikipedias, but as far as I'm aware there isn't anyone fixing these right now. Hopefully these can be cleaned up before anyone actually tries to use our references. Jc86035 (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks like the new regex doesn't allow the default archive used by frwiki [8]. --- Jura 16:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Jura1: This is an error on my part (I forgot that it existed) and I'll fix it in a few minutes. Jc86035 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jc86035: A good source for archive URL formats is here. As can be seen, the formats are quite diverse, even within a single provider (e.g. NLA Australia and WebCite). This is not a comprehensive list but the archive services I am aware of in use on Enwiki, there are likely some more. Other languages probably have others (the frwiki "wikiwix" is included in this list). A single regex filter would be challenging to construct, a lot of real estate to cover. I can provide regex statements for each individually if interested. -- GreenC (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    @GreenC: The regex I used is on the property page. It only works for seven services right now (Wayback Machine, Internet Archive files,, Webrecorder,, WebCite and, but most of the errors are nevertheless neither links to valid copies of the pages nor links to the archive services listed on the page you linked to. I think simple domain matching would be passable for the rarer services, at least for now; so far I've only done more complex matching for and Jc86035 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, a lot of garbage ends up the archive fields. On enwiki, my bot detects if the url and archiveurl are the same and removes the archiveurl if true. On Wikidata, if there is an archiveurl but no url, and the archiveurl is not a valid/known webarchive, it might reasonably be moved to the url field.. but would need to spend time in the data to make sure that is a decent heuristic. -- GreenC (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Bots for linking identically named categoriesEdit

Hi. Is there an existing bot for linking identically named category on Commons with its equivalent on Wikipedia? I noticed that none of the categories in c:Category:Townships in Pennsylvania by county are properly linked up. I am willing and capable of writing my own bot if necessary but I would rather use an existing one if possible. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I recall doing something like this back in the interwiki days, but I can't find the query. Probably got lost in one of the moves. You can just do a database query for the categories on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons that have the same name, but the Commons Category doesn't exist on the linked Wikidata item. Not all exact matches are the same by the way, some disambiguation might not have happened on either side so you have to apply some filtering. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

50 million triples deleted last week?Edit

I just looked at this visualization of the number of triples and was wondering what that large-scale deletion (or merging?) was about. Any pointers? Do we have tools that provide answers to such questions? Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a ticket. Gene merging, maybe, but it was slightly more than a month's worth of triple-growth, so maybe not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Racing and raceEdit

Shouldn't be race separated from racing (Q878123)? Eurohunter (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: race (Q22938576) already exists, so sitelinks could be moved between the two items. Jc86035 (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

documentation ? - name for Wikidata Query Service visualization packageEdit

The Wikidata:Wikidata Query Service can output data from queries into various visualizations.

Do we have a documentation page for the WDQS visualizations? Do we call these the "Wikidata Query Service Visualizations"?

Answer here or at Wikidata_talk:SPARQL_query_service#Name_for_the_visualization_suite?. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:SPARQL query service/Wikidata Query Help/Result_Views. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  Resolved This is what I wanted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

wbEntity config value to be dropped on July 24thEdit

Hello all,

This message is important for people who still use the config value mw.config.get( 'wbEntity') in their tools or scripts. This value, deprecated for two years, will be completely dropped on July 24th.

The config value mw.config.get( 'wbEntity') has been deprecated in order to improve the page load time, especially on large Items. Currently, a significant proportion of the HTML on every entity page is generated by this value. Dropping wbEntity completely will make the first paint (time needed to load the page) faster, and will better utilize the server and client cache.

If your code is still using mw.config.get( 'wbEntity'), you can replace it by the hook wikibase.entityPage.entityLoaded (see an example here).

On Wednesday, July 24th, we will drop mw.config.get( 'wbEntity') from Wikidata’s codebase and calling the value will result in an error.

If you have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a comment under the related task.

Thanks for your understanding, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

quick search for the about 50 user scripts that will break. Multichill (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #374Edit

Modifications via URL, batches not runningEdit

Hi, all: I posted some batches via URL. I received the correct JSON message with OK and the corresponding batch number.
Numbers are 16099...16105. The last one refers to wikidata, the others refer to wikidata-test.
None of them run. Why? Thx. Bargioni (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are trying to be a bot without using the bot API or getting a bot approval. Is that the case? ChristianKl❫ 15:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I assume he's referring to . Multichill (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: You are right. put me in a wrong direction: Use the token to submit a batch to QuickStatements from your own bot (please use POST): ./api.php?action=import&submit=1&foo&bar
Please give me the doc for writing a bot for atomic modifications. My idea is to keep items in sync with PUSC author id.

Wikidata Shape Expressions Inference tool is working againEdit

Wikidata Shape Expressions Inference (documentation) is a tool I wrote (as part of my master’s thesis, Schema Inference on Wikidata (Q57385555)) that takes a SPARQL query returning a limited set of exemplary items and infers a ShEx (Q29377880) schema from them. I’ve never properly announced it here – the original announcement to WikiProject chat was linked in the weekly summary, and Léa mentioned it below the Shape Expressions on Wikidata announcement, but by that point it was already broken and then I had other things to do for a while. I’ve finally fixed it now, which seems as good a time as any to properly announce it here :)

As detailed in my thesis, the schemas can’t be used directly for validation (they’re so large that every validator I tried would crash, though at least one new implementation has been announced since then, which I haven’t tried yet), but hopefully they can still be useful, by highlighting problems in the source data (“why does the schema say that given name (Q202444) is a valid class for child (P40)?”) or as a starting point for more useful schemas that you manually extract from the automatically infererred ones.

Please take a look and let me know if it works for you! --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Modeling the Survey of Scottish Witchcraft database on Wikidata - which property proposals to go forward withEdit

Hi, currently have a property proposal in place for 'manner of torture/punishment' in place but looking at other interesting data in the Survey of Scottish witchcraft database and looking at where there maybe a good case to argue for inclusion on Wikidata and a new property proposal:

  • Date of torture (add as qualifier to manner of torture/punishment using Point in Time?)
  • Date of confession
  • Location of confession
  • Date of arrest
  • marital status - assume we would just link to spouses, children, siblings, relatives using those existing properties? However, this is sparse.
  • accused of - there is rich information in terms of the different things the accused witches are actually accused of e.g. devil's mark, shapechanging (to a cat, a dog, a hare, an apparition).
  • Ordeal type - technically distinct from the extrajudicial torture that took place although many ordeals involved painful procedures, this was a test conducted in order to let nature or God reveal the truth. Values would include: Bierricht (corpse bleeds), Ducking (otherwise known as the water test, Pricking (the body of the suspect witch was pricked with pins in order to find a Devil’s mark). I imagine we could characterise under manner of torture/punishment if having a separate property for ordeal proved inappropriate. Although this test would have formed part of the trial process.
  • Ordeal date.
  • Cause of malice - why the accused witches were accused of acting as they did (values such as revenge, debt, slander, grudge, failed business). Could Has Cause (P828) be used here? It is more of an accusation/complaint than a direct cause though.

Any thoughts on how these could work? Stinglehammer (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)