Open main menu

Wikidata β

Wikidata:Project chat

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018/06.

Announcing derivedstatements.jsEdit

For many items Wikidata has more information than can be seen on the item page. For example on Whitcomb L. Judson (Q731876) you see that he is an inventor but you don't see his invention. That's because discoverer or inventor (P61) only links from the invention to the inventor and not the other way round. To solve this general problem that statements are only displayed in one way I've written the script derivedstatements.js. The script adds at the end of all item pages a new button to load inverse statements.

You can install the script by adding to Special:MyPage/common.js the following line:
importScript( 'User:Pasleim/derivedstatements.js' ); // [[User:Pasleim/derivedstatements.js]]
--Pasleim (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, simply superb. This is a feature that should have been in native WD for a long time. You even thought of getting labels from inverse properties! Thanks! -- LaddΩ chat ;) 00:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, really nice, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Incredibly useful, thank you! - PKM (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Pasleim! Would it be possible to display properties in user language please? — Ayack (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Really nice script. My wishlist
  • get local language
  • a link to the query in the query editor so that I can easy and fast complement the search with more fields
  • paintings with depict show a thumbnail of the painting
- Salgo60 (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice! It would be good if it was possible to then click on a link to add that derived value to the item (where it doesn't exist already). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: This is already done by User:Frettie/consistency check add.js, I've recently discovered it. --Epìdosis 14:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Excellent. Very useful feature. Thanks a lot! --Beat Estermann (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I will work on implementing your suggestions. --Pasleim (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this great script and keep on implementing on it. Nortix08 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi again. Below a few thoughts after having seen the script in action for a few days:
First, it would be good if the tool had a talk page where we can continue this discussion.
Second, it is not clear to me from where you fetch the labels of the inverse properties. Example: Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny (Q760054) has a series of characters <inverse of: present in work (P1441)>. The derivedstatements feature presently uses "shows" as the label of the inverse property, while present in work (P1441) gives characters (P674) as its inverse property. – Should we not be declaring an inverse property for each property. And if so, how should we go about it?
Third, how about duplicate information based on inverse statements on the items? – Example: Schauspielhaus Zürich (Q675022) has a statement <has part (P527)> Main Stage (Schauspielhaus Zurich) (Q39918282), and the derivedstatements feature again lists the same information, because Main Stage (Schauspielhaus Zurich) (Q39918282) has an inverse part of (P361) statement. – Is this duplication of information by the script to be considered a bug or a feature?
--Beat Estermann (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Beat Estermann: Why don't use User talk:Pasleim/derivedstatements.js? --Marsupium (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you make this a Gadget please, so we can activate it on user settings? -- JakobVoss (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Losing property creator rights (part 2)Edit

(Pinging current property creators: @Ayack, Paperoastro, MichaelSchoenitzer, Emw, Izno: @Mattflaschen, JakobVoss, 99of9, ArthurPSmith, Kolja21: @Tobias1984, Viscontino, Jonathan Groß, PinkAmpersand: @Yellowcard, Thierry Caro, Ivan A. Krestinin, Nightwish62, Fralambert: @Danrok, MSGJ, GZWDer, Joshbaumgartner, Srittau: @Almondega, Jura1, Pintoch:)

After the discussion that we had here. This is the text that I would like to add to Wikidata:Property creators

Losing this right:

After a property creator has been inactive for a year, not creating properties and not participating in property proposal discussions, they might be asked by any member of the community if they want to continue holding the right. At this point they will have the opportunity to be active again, or lose temporarily the property creator rights until they decide to apply again to the right, either through the standard process or through the fast process if it is within 6 months of their last logged action (see below).

Property creator rights can also be removed after a community discussion at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Removal, upon consensus supporting the removal.

Property creator access can also be removed due to voluntary resignation of the property creator. Property creators wishing to resign their access may request removal at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. If the Property creator wishes to regain their access after a voluntary resign, it can be requested at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard within 6 months of their last logged action in line with the inactivity policy.

Any comment?--Micru (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me! − Pintoch (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
No need to ask stewards to remove rights, because Wikidata admins can remove property creator user rights. Stryn (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I replaced it by the Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard.--Micru (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm alright with the first and last paragraphs, but oppose the vote language in the second. Rights should only be removed in cases where there is consensus, not merely on the basis of a 50/50 'vote'. I would also add the following language: "In any case in which the holder has expressed their desire to retain the property creator right, inactivity alone shall not be cause for removal of said right." There is zero harm in someone only using their PC right sparingly. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: That vote paragraph is taken from Wikidata:Administrators#Losing_adminship. If you are not ok with it, we should change it for admins too. I agree that consensus should be more important than a vote. Any specific idea about how we should put that into words? I also agree that the PC right might be used sparingly, but I feel that a year without creating any property and not commenting on property proposals should be enough for the community to consider that this person might have lost interest or maybe doesn't have the time to work with properties. Also bear in mind that if someone loses their PC right they are neither being kicked out of the project, nor prevented of applying for the right again at a later date.--Micru (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: PC rights are different from the far more ranging administrators rights. There is no reason adminship rules should have to follow property creator guidelines. As for how to word it, simply replace the word "vote" with "discussion", and the "with at least 50%..." part with "upon consensus". My basic point is this, if the person says let me keep it, then done, they get to keep it (unless they have abused it somehow). If they really have gone inactive and have no desire to retain that role, then sure of course they can be removed from the rolls. What no one has been able to explain is what the harm is of someone having the PC right but only using it sparingly (including once every couple of years). Just because a property regarding their area of expertise only comes up infrequently, what value is there in having them have to re-apply each time? If the stated goal is to increase participation in property creation discussions, removing people's PC rights while they aren't looking and forcing them to re-apply won't help. Is there any actual case where someone having the PC right but not using it has caused a problem and thus justifies this effort in the first place, or are we just writing law to solve a hypothetical? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I have modified the text above according to your suggestion (I hope other people are ok with the change). Regarding "what the harm is of someone having the PC right but only using it sparingly", I will try to explain the best I can my point of view on the topic: for me the collection of properties that we have is like a language, we use it to express things about the world, and like all languages somehow it is quite consistent (even more than most languages I would say). Creating a new property is like expanding the language, and I believe that in order to expand it you have to be familiar with what already exists, at least in your domain. I admit that properties now should be more domain specific, and that is problematic, because we don't have any way for property creators to specify which domain they want to oversee, nor users have the way to ping any specific property creator to review their proposal once it has been discussed. So we end up in a situation where all property creators are sort of watching all property proposal pages, and that is quite overwhelming for a single individual if they care about the whole process, as I do. My concern is, are all property creators really pulling their weight and solving complex discussions? Or are they left to die with nobody caring about them? Right now we have many proposals that have been open for more than 30 days, and some of them are still open even if they didn't have any comment for more than 2 months. This is in my view a failure from the community, because when it takes so long then the proposer maybe has lost interest by the time the property is created, so it is left unused, creating even more work (as @Jura1: once pointed out to me). For me it is stressful because it makes me lose the motivation to work on them if I am the only one solving these stalled situations. Sometimes when we had a big backlog I worked in bursts of activity to reduce it, but it doesn't address any issue, as then even more proposals are launched, and then the cycle begins again. What I would like to have is a list of people I can count on because they care about properties, and with whom I can discuss issues about property creation, like who takes care of what, or which reviewing processes we use to avoid pissing people off (as I have sometimes because I didn't have better ways of doing things). So for me those are the biggest issues, I don't mind so much if a property creator doesn't create a property in 10 years while he or she (is there any female PC btw?) maintains informed, cares about the process, and assists other PC. I think the first step is to know who is in, and for me to know if a person is in or not, it is not a matter of "expressing interest" because then the PC right becomes just another hat to collect, but in actually "showing interest" by doing something relevant in the domain they care about (be it direct creation, or discussing processes), and for me 1 year without not even commenting any property proposal doesn't show much interest from their side... Once said that, I also believe that PC should create properties only for a Wikiproject, because I think that the maintenance of the property, and the community-capacity to know how many properties can be maintained, can only be assessed by those who are interested in said properties, but I believe that is a matter for a future discussion.--Micru (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: The change looks good. I actually see where you are going at and I agree with you, it gets overwhelming and I am myself guilty of giving up at times in the face of the volume. I do try and respond if I am pinged on something, though if I don't have constructive input, I usually prefer to remain silent versus a generic support or oppose 'vote'. I occasionally browse the list of proposals in full, but as you mentioned there a lot for which I don't have any real input. I do think that a good ecosystem of properties created and curated by an engaged community would be ideal. I am all for anything that brings this about. One of the problems with a smaller number of people participating is that proposals need to remain longer in order to get sufficient discussion and ensure that input has been received. This exacerbates the problem of folks proposing properties, then giving up on them ever getting approved, and when they finally are created, having moved on to other things, leaving the property underutilized. I would like to see a more streamlined process for proposals that are more-or-less clear. Especially for authority control, an experience PC can look at an authority control property and pretty quickly gauge whether or not it is appropriate, and if so, how to set up the property with proper constraints and formatter, etc. As far as I am concerned, this should be something that can be done immediately by a PC if it meets certain criteria, which would both reduce backlog and the imposing volume of proposals as well as improve the use of the property by rapidly putting it in the hands of the community to use. To that end, I think we should perhaps have a select group of PCs that are even more actively engaged--a sort of property swat team. This is getting afield of the original issue, some of this is probably better discussed elsewhere. As for this proposal, I'm fine with the rewording, though I would still like to see something stating that a PC can not have their rights removed over their objections so long as there is no case of them abusing that right (my proposed wording is above). Add that simple protection and I can support this fully. As for other ways to improve the property ecosystem, consider me an ally and let's discuss some ideas. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: I don't understand why you want that PCs can keep they right even if they do not participate. Can you please explain your reasoning? --Micru (talk) 12:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: I've explained it multiple times in these threads. Let me add that just because one does not meet your narrow definition of 'participation' (as written in your proposed language) does not mean that they are not participating. It went unanswered before, but is there a real world case where we need this new rule, and in particular is there a real world case where we need the ability to remove the property creator right from a user who has not abused the right and wishes to retain it? Josh Baumgartner (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: What is 'participation' in your definition? Your question came also on the previous discussion (at the end, by ChristianKl), do you find my answer satisfactory enough?--Micru (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: I'm not the one seeking to create a limited definition of participation, that's what this proposal does above. Your answer from that previous thread seems to indicate that you want the list of property creators to be something it is not currently. So my suggestion is that instead of creating a lot of strife taking peoples' rights away, create a new list that meets your more stringent requirements. You are welcome to create a swat team of go-to folks if you want, but there is no need to punish the rest of the people who don't want to dance to that tune. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: You say that my definition of participation is limited, but what is your definition of participation?--Micru (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there a good reason to have a discussion about such a policy change in the Project Chat instead of creating a RfC? ChristianKl❫ 12:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Yes, there is one, I'm quite disappointed with the RFC process here on Wikidata where the discussions stay open for too long and no effort is done to reach a reasonable conclusion before the conversation stales. Besides from my side I consider that this thread satisfies my limited time constraints, but of course if you feel that you need to talk more about this, you are free to start a RfC.--Micru (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I   Oppose the proposal in the current form on the project chat, as I don't think this is the appropriate venue for policy changes that take away the rights of people, especially with the amount of participation that this thread got. ChristianKl❫ 22:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I am fine with moving it to a more appropriate venue. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  Oppose There is no need for this proposal. Taking away user rights will not increase participation. There is no harm in allowing users to retain the property creator right even if inactive. I also agree with ChristianK1 that this is probably not the right place for this proposal. Josh Baumgartner (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner, ChristianKl: I do feel the need to clarify the rights and responsibilities of Property Creators. I have opened a new RFC per your request: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Clarifying rights and responsibilities of Property Creators --Micru (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates "Imported from Russian Wikipedia"Edit

Coordinates "Imported from Russian Wikipedia" = "Coordinates are likely to be incorrect". Is there any way to put a moratorium on importing data from the Russian Wikipedia? Abductive (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

It would be possible to have a bot that removes dta imported from Russian Wikipedia periotically. Before doing that it would however make sense to speak with the people who imported the relevant data. ChristianKl❫ 11:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that ru.wiki users that are doing so think that P143-sourced statement is better than no statement at all and in order to use WD data in their infoboxes... they imported their data here. Wostr (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: Sorry, but earlier "imported from Russian Wikipedia" was a sign of quality (your opinion agains mine, uh?). But better consider mass import from Cebuan Wikipedia. If you have some arguments (statistics, research) for imho, you should give it, otherwise your post is abusive. --Infovarius (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Just check my contributions for when I changed coordinates. You'll see that coordinates imported from the Russian Wikipedia are frequently incorrect. Or do your own study, using the random item feature. Actually checking the coordinates against internet maps reveals glaring errors. Abductive (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Abductive: Well, unless you've made contribution under different accounts and/or anonymously, I can see your corrections of coordinate location (P625) in:
I also looked into a few random items with coordinates taken from ru-wiki: Q522462, Q3214976, Q17388. Frankly speaking I don't see how did you draw conclusion "coordinates imported for ru-wiki are likely to be incorrect". Don't get me wrong, you are doing important job of coordinate verification and your input is greatly appreciated. But before deleting >200K of statements, I'd like to see 10^2-10^3 "glaring errors". --Ghuron (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

topic's main category for executive bodyEdit

Why executive body (P208) has property constraint (P2302) -> value requires statement constraint (Q21510864) -> property (P2306) -> topic's main category (P910) ? I can't understand what to do... Xaris333 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be expecting that there is a language wikipedia category associated with each instance of an executive body, and that there is a wikidata item for the wikipedia category, and that you'll use P910 to point from the instance of executive body item to the category item, as for example Cabinet of Israel (Q2578249) does to no label (Q10092812). I'm not convinced that the expectations of the constraint will always be delivered by language wikipedias. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I am using executive body (P208) to Communal Council items (villages). We will never have a category to any Wikipedia.
Xaris333 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Then I wouldn't worry too much about the constraint. Not sure if another more appropriate property exists than P208, or if P208 is just really badly defined & constrained. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I removed the constraint as it doesn't make sense anymore (it might have made sense in the early days of Wikidata). ChristianKl❫ 20:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Basic Formal OntologyEdit

Can someone create items for each ontology listed at

http://ifomis.uni-saarland.de/bfo/users

they all are claimed to use Basic Formal Ontology (Q4866972) 92.228.157.51 16:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Example:

Animals in Context Ontology (Q54913761)
subclass of : ontology
uses : Basic Formal Ontology
official website : http://vtsl.vetmed.vt.edu/aco/

92.228.157.51 16:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to do this, but won't have capacity until next week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing - thanks a lot! Hopefully step by step real world classification - as found in reliable ontologies - can be added to Wikidata. 85.181.248.20 09:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: please don't add "subclass of" statements to particular ontologies, but use instance of (P31) instead! -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:, take care with JakobVoss as this user classified dozens, maybe hundreds, of ID systems as instanceOf ID. [1] BFO has been mentioned here to exactly educate people against these unilateral talk-ignoring misclassifications. 2.245.10.35 23:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

As there is disagreement on how to model this, I'll hold off until others have commented, and there is a clear consensus on the prefered model. FWIW, I would use "instance of ontology". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  Support <instance of> ontology. These are clearly individually named ontologies, not types or categpries of ontologies. - PKM (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Right: 'instance' it is. All done; see the query below. A few already existed, so watch out for possible duplicates, if I missed any.

SELECT ?ontology ?ontologyLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?ontology wdt:P31 wd:Q324254.
  ?ontology wdt:P2283 wd:Q4866972.
}
LIMIT 1000

Try it!

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 21 June 2018 (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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

City as an administrative territorial entity and sister cityEdit

Is a city "a territorial entity for administration purposes, with or without its own local government" I think this is wrong. Municipality is subclass of political territorial entity (Q1048835), not the city. Sometimes are the same, so we have one item. Sometimes are not the same:

For example,

Thessaloniki (Q17151) is a city which includes many municipalities. Municipality of Thessaloniki (Q6627746) is the main municipality, but only the one municpality of the city. It is controlling only a part of the city.

The administrative territorial entity in that case are (by administrative level):

Second example: Cyprus is divided to 6 district (1st administrative level). Each district have municipalites and communal councils (villages) (2nd administrative level). Cities are not administrative territorial entity. Each city have many municipalities.

The administrative territorial entity in that case are (by administrative level):

I have these thoughts because of twinned administrative body (P190). Each municipality or community (the authorities of them) make an agreement with a twin municipality or a twin community. Not the city each self. But this, is not for all cases. In some cases, in some countries, "all city=one municipality".

Maybe I am wrong. I am confused. Xaris333 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right, the term "city" has two meanings - one is the human settlement in a purely geographic sense, the other is the political administrative unit. In Wikipedia and thus also here, whenever possible the two meanings are clustered together - simply because in most cases they are practically identical. This is one of problems with the import from geonames via the Cebuano Wikipedia - in geonames the "human settlement" and "political unit" are always separated, which created a lot of duplicate items here. And thus its right that for the sister city property it should be limited to political units, but not only local governments - in Thailand also provinces have done such partnerships. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
This is one of several instances where ceb.wp is causing problems WMF-wide. What they are doing is a nuisance. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It can also be tricky when there's a distinction between an administrative body and the territory administered by that body. Sometimes there are two entities in Wikidata, sometimes only one (usually for the territory). A territory itself doesn't really have administrative powers, it's the thing that's administered. Ghouston (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


The fact is that there is always a distinction between an administrative body and the territory administered by that body, according to the point of view of each discipline. Are the boundaries of the city up to the last buildings, or at the boundaries of the administrative body? (which may include surrounding farmlands, forests, lakes...) Is the population living in the city, or living at the area administered by the local administrative body (so, a similar question would be "where in which we put the population, since the censuses reference the population by administrative bodies and not by cities, towns, and villages"). Going a level up, are the wars or treaties between countries or between the governments of the countries?

The point is that municipalities or any administrative entity are not self-sufficient. The municipalities represent their city, but the boundaries of a municipality and a city are never identical if we see it positively (for example, if we think the city extends to the last houses). There are different types of settlements from a human geography point of view, there are various relations between the city center and the suburbs (or if one wants to see it administratively, the central municipality and the regional ones), the surrounding settlements even when they are in a different administrative unit have a direct connection with the city, etc... In essence, the institution is referred to as such; between "cities" and not municipalities. Sometimes linguistic or formal conventions create ambiguities, but it is natural (self-evident) that in order for twinning to take place that would need action from their representatives (the municipalities) -like in treaties between countries, signed by their governments.

If it is considered correct that eg. if it is not Kavala (Q187352) who was twinned with Nuremberg (Q2090), then it should also apply to the second part: then it would be Municipality of Kavala (Q12282294) and the "Municipality of Nuremberg" (no item). Are not Thessaloniki (Q17151) and Melbourne (Q3141), but the Municipality of Thessaloniki (Q6627746) and the City of Melbourne (Q1919098)? (only the center, with 3% of the city's population) According to formalities, yes. These are the institutions that have signed the co-operation agreements. On the other hand, however, we see that the Municipalities themselves report twinning with other cities, not with other municipalities. That is humanistically correct, as the structure and culture of cities are generally dependent on its center, substantially or even as symbols. Thessaloniki and Melbourne where twinned because more than 152000 Greeks live in Melbourne. A number much larger than the population of the whole "City of Melbourne". It is obvious that in many cases the political administrative unit of the city centre or the greater area acts on behalf of the city. These actions may be symbolic or substantial but the do represent the city. Another example would be the twinning of New York City (Q60) and London (Q84). London is not the administrative body, Greater London (Q23306) is. Sticking with unecessary formalism, would mean that we would turn "twinned cities" to "twinned administrative bodies". -Geraki (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Any suggestions to solve the problem? Xaris333 (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The claim isn't there at the moment. It seems to come and go. I'd suggest pointing out on its Talk page why it shouldn't be there. Ghouston (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


My suggestion is to use city (Q515) with instance of (P31) for all cities, plus to use subclass of (P279) with administrative territorial entity (Q56061) (or a subclass of it) if the city and the municipality are the same thing (item). If we have separated items, then we must use only city (Q515) with instance of (P31). For the municipality we will use subclass of (P279) with administrative territorial entity (Q56061). This will affect some properties like twinned administrative body (P190) (I rename it to "twinned administrative body"), we have to move the statements from the city to the municipality item. Xaris333 (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, for the U.S. we have city (Q1093829) for a "city" in the legal/administrative sense; in many states, this can apply to some small settled places that are by no means a city (Q515). I suspect something parallel applies in other countries. - Jmabel (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the solution identified by Xaris333 makes sense:

--FocalPoint (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ordre de la GlorieEdit

How can I Express for the item Ordre de la Gloire (Q2085100) that this item must have the mandatory qualifier point in time (P585) when used for the statement award received (P166) Pmt (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC).

AFAIK mandatory qualifier requirements are in the property domain, and so we find P166 has a property constraint in the form of a mandatory qualifier constraint requirement for P585. Presumably the thinking is that all awards must have a temporal property. Is there anything especial about Q2085100 over and above this normal expectation? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No nothing special With Q2085100, just chosen as an example. The answer that in general the requirement are in the property is fine with me. Maybe I just can use Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) saying This item must have P585 as qualifier. Pmt (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't have item based mandatory qualifiers. In this case I also don't see why one would be warrented as it would effectively say: "There are no serious sources that mention that a person received this award but that don't say when they received it" ChristianKl❫ 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
"Award received" has a constraint "Point in time". So I do not understand the issue. Also a constraint does not mean that we always know the associated date. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatter URL for XMLEdit

As discussed at User talk:Pigsonthewing#ORCID iD (P496) formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921), User:Tpt suggested that we should not use formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) for URIs like https://pub.orcid.org/0000-0001-5882-6823/person which return an XML file. Do we need a separate property for these; if not, how should such URLs be represented? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To add my 2cents, formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) is specific for patterns for RDF resources URIs and so imho could not be use to link to XML documents. It would be very interesting to create a new URI formatter that would be named something "URI pattern for machine-readable representation" that would link to JSON/XML/turtle... description of the connected entities. It would be also useful in the RDF use case when the resource URIs do not properly redirect to an RDf document describing the resource when an RDF content type is requested. Tpt (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a suggestion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The URI form of ORCID identifiers is https://orcid.org/$1, try for instance curl -LH 'Accept: text/turtle' http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0880-9125. The URL https://pub.orcid.org/0000-0001-5882-6823/person seems to be no URI but a request to the current ORCID API. We should not put these URLs into Wikidata but refer to the API endpoint and documentation instead. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge pagesEdit

Can HNLMS Groningen (Q2157087) and no label (Q25712361) be merged? same ship

and

Can Belgian frigate Louise-Marie (Q339869) and Willem van der Zaan (Q2661233)? also same ship

thx in advance  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.129.41.136 (talk • contribs) at 18:33, June 12, 2018‎ (UTC).

I merged the first. The second could be merged in theory, but not in practice since there's an article for each name on nlwiki. Ghouston (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
The second is not the same ship. If it really is, you need to hunt the nl-wiki community to merge the two articles there first. But I'm pretty sure it is not the same ship. Edoderoo (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It's the same ship, it was sold by the Netherlands to Belgium and renamed. Ghouston (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Stunteltje: any ideas? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Definately the same ship. I don't have any experience in Wikidata, so I cannot give advice how to handle here. But I don't think it is wise to merge the articles in NL Wikipedia. --Stunteltje (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's the Bonny and Clyde problem: enwiki has a single article for the ship under either name, en:Belgian_frigate_Louise-Marie_(F931), so we need 3 items for it. Ghouston (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Property for designs or patterns?Edit

Do we have a property to use to indicate the pattern or design that is typically intrinsic to or applied to an item? For example, madras (Q3276218) <?has pattern> plaid (Q7200585); Paisley shawl (Q24969701) <?has pattern> paisley (Q937704). - PKM (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: ' don't know. We have the not so well-defined manifestation of (P1557). But I'm not sure/haven't investigated how it is (supposed to be) used. --Marsupium (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Registration requiredEdit

Links using the property Deezer artist ID (P2722) only work if a person has an account and is logged in. Do we have some means to mark such properties and sites that require users to have an account to use their links? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that we have such a property. But we should get it! I'd   support a proposal. Would also be useful for AKL Online Artist ID (P4432) and also for references where there the Cite template family on enwiki for instance has the system described at en:Template:Citation#Subscription or registration required. --Marsupium (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
We don't need a property; create (or use) an item or items ("subscription-only service"; "freemium service", etc) and apply them using a suitable existing property ("instance of", or whatever) as a qualifier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it should at least be mentioned in the property description.
    --- Jura 09:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Swedish verbEdit

mula (Q10590035) is a Swedish verb. It seemed natural to me to create a sitelink to https://sv.wiktionary.org/wiki/mula (via wiki=sv, value="mula" under Wiktionary) but I got a message telling me basically not to do that. Seems odd to me; what is correct policy? - Jmabel (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The main issue is that items about words are not supposed in the Q namespace in Wikidata but in the newly created Lexeme/Form namespaces. Maybe the solution is to create a proper item for 'mula' in those namespaces and then add the link from sv-wiki to the newly created item and delete mula (Q10590035). ChristianKl❫ 11:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: So does that mean that Wikipedia articles about words shouldn't have corresponding Wikidata items, the way all other articles (even disambiguations) should? That seems a bit awkward. - Jmabel (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Why do you think it's awkward to to link such articles to a lexeme or sense instead of an item in the Q-namespace? ChristianKl❫ 10:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I think it's awkward either to ask Wikipedians who may know almost nothing about Commons to have to do things differently for a class of articles that have no special distinction within the site they are familiar with, or to ask a bot to be able to make a distinction such as that the article "African American" is about an ethnic group, but the article "Negro" is about a word. - Jmabel (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

is part of a particular cuisineEdit

How do I indicate that a dish or an ingredient is part of a particular cuisine? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's sometimes done with part of (P361) like on Valtellina Casera (Q782709). Ghouston (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
There's also indigenous to (P2341) if you're associating the dish to a specific people, location or culture. - PKM (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
part of (P361) seems to me to be a little awkward for things like this, because it gives a warning if you don't have the reciprocal has part (P527). It seems to me like we should have an alternative for part of (P361) that doesn't expect that sort of explicit reciprocation. - Jmabel (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
In this case, the inverse can just be added to the cuisine item. But there has been a discussion about whether the inverse constraint should be required, and it was even deleted for a while but reinstated. Property_talk:P361#Removing_inverse_constraint. Ghouston (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe "facet of"? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This sounds off to me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Different versions of source documentEdit

I have created item NRHP nomination: WCAU Studios (Q54987601) describing a particular document for use as a source. Two online, official outlets (the U.S. National Archives and the Pennsylvania state authorities) host PDFs purporting to be that document. However the two PDFs are significantly different: one of the PDFs (at the Archives) appears to be the final version of the document, while the other (PA) appears to be an earlier draft.

So, how should I present this situation in the full work available at (P953) statement(s)? As of right now, I've listed both links with the PA link deprecated. Is there a qualifier I can attach to the PA link to describe the situation? Or should I just use the Archives link and remove the PA link? Or is there a different way to approach the situation? — Ipoellet (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I did that, using a value of draft document (Q560361). — Ipoellet (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy in BiologyEdit

[ Deletion of start of topic ]

The French article fr:Taxonomie seems to be about biological classiciation, so isn't it correctly at taxonomy (Q8269924) rather than taxonomy (Q7211)? If the first two items you mention are really duplicates, it would perhaps be possible to merge fr:Taxonomie with fr:Classification scientifique des espèces. Ghouston (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the purpose of Wikidata in linking is to connect pages on the same topic, not to force Wikipedias to re-compose their pages on Wikidata-selected topics. There are some users who try to place sitelinks so as to give Wikipedia pages the exposure they desire rather than in the item where the concepts is dealt with, but fortunately they are the exception. This means that if there is a single Wikipedia that has separate pages on related topics, Wikidata needs to have separate items.
        "Taxonomy" and "biological classification" are indeed related topics, but they are not necessarily the same concept. There is no reason why there should not be separate items, although exact placement of sitelinks may not be easy.
        The idea of moving sitelinks from "d:Q8269924 (taxonomy, science of finding, describing, defining and naming groups of biological organisms)" to the unrelated "d:Q7211 (taxonomy, classification of things or concepts)" just to make things look neater is really abhorrent. These are completely different concepts and should be kept separate, in any event. - Brya (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Martinogk: Do not delete your comments once others have replied to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikimania program & Wikidata-related sessionsEdit

Hello all,

The program of Wikimania 2018 is out!

I drafted a summary of all the Wikidata-related sessions on this page. Feel free to improve it, or add things if I forgot some.

You can also sign-up in the "I'm attending" section so we have a better overview of who from the community is going :)

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Domain and Range of PropertiesEdit

Dear all,

I have looked at the Wikidata download page. However, I could not find the domain and range of properties.

By looking at a random property I understood that the domain and range definitions are handled via Contraints (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2302). Am I correct?

Thanks,

Giuseppe  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.145.63.151 (talk • contribs) at 09:23, 15 June 2018‎ (UTC).

Yes. However, it isn't mandatory for a property to have either definition and the system does not enforce the constraints. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Soup Kitchen as Peruvian cultural monument?Edit

There was a bunch of stuff in soup kitchen (Q2142654) about a Peruvian cultural monument. I removed it just now, but perhaps it would be better split into a new item. I couldn't figure out what was going on with it, but others more familiar with the cultural databases might. Daask (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The Peruvian stuff was added in 2017-11 by User:André Costa (WMSE)'s bot. I suppose it got the item confused with something, the claims should probably go somewhere else. Ghouston (talk) 03:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Daask, Ghouston: This was due to an error on es.wiki, now corrected. We added some logic to spot these during the import but sadly a few snuck through. Thanks for spotting it and fixing it here. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

New RFC: Clarifying rights and responsibilities of Property CreatorsEdit

Same item with a propertyEdit

Is there a constrain for using, with a property, only an item just one time? I mean, for a property, you can add two times the same item. Xaris333 (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly ... single value constraint (Q19474404) --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Not that. A property can has many values, sometimes the values are the same. I am asking if there is a constrain for using the same value more than one time. Xaris333 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
distinct values constraint (Q21502410)? - PKM (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Not that. A property of one item can has many values, sometimes the values are the same. I am asking if there is a constrain for using the same value more than one time, in the same item. Xaris333 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Your description is ambiguous and bold characters are not likely to help. Can you give examples of item states where the constraint would trigger a violation, and examples of item states where the constraint would be satisfied? − Pintoch (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Ι can add this statement more than one time. Q8682#P1344. If I have 100 or 200 values to a property, It would be helpful to have a constrain showing that the value is already added. Xaris333 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

ArgoEdit

Argo (Q647931) has a coordinate location (P625) referenced from the Danish Wikipedia. I don't see how this could have an associated geographic location, but I don't read Danish well enough to assure myself to the contrary. Looks to me like User:Steenthbot added it 4 years ago. Anyone understand what's going on here? - Jmabel (talk)

I can't read Danish either, but I do see a coordinate template on the Danish article. I've read the Dutch article and that makes me wonder too why there is a coordinate location (P625) statement on the item and the template on the Danish article. Maybe Steenth can explain it (or another user that can read Danish, like Fnielsen). Mbch331 (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
It is come from en:Special:Diff/238250797, where a bot has inserted coordinates to en:Argo (oceanography). And this coordinates was coming to dawiki after the article was translate to danish. Maybe it's an old bot error. --Steenth (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mbch331, Steenth:So can we agree that, although cited for, this information is not valid? - Jmabel (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Lacking further response here after nearly 48 hours, I am taking the liberty of deleting the statement. - Jmabel (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata as an authority control, in web page metadataEdit

I'd like to document good examples of third parties referencing Wikidata to identify a subject, in webpage markup (e.g. microdata, schema.org) or or page headers, as opposed to simple plaintext or web links in page content. Can anyone suggest some, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

See source of https://www.obi.de, https://www.apple.com and quite a few other large websites. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Thank you. That's interesting; I hadn't envisaged use for the subject of the site as a whole. What about examples for individual page subjects? I also note that OBI uses https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q300518 ("https"; "wiki") while Apple uses http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q312 ("http"; "entity"). Am I correct in assuming that "https" and "entity" are preferred? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
The Apple one is more "correct" because that is the URI of the concept that is also linked in the sidebar of any item.
I have not come across sites using it for individual page subjects but that doesn't mean much. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm still seeking examples, at page-level specificity, if anyone has them - someone must be doing this, surely? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Like data.bnf.fr (see "Pages équivalentes" section) and SUDOC ("Autres identifiants"), for instance? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC).
Thank you, but the markup in the former is (for an English speaker): <a href="http://wikidata.org/entity/Q535">Equivalent record in Wikidata :</a>, with no semantic component. I did find one example, which I documented at Wikidata:Wikidata for authority control#MusicBrainz. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of letter in languageEdit

Hi, I would like to add the fact that a certain letter can be pronounced as a specific phoneme in a specific language; for instance, that letter A (Q9659) can be pronounced as phoneme near-open front unrounded vowel (Q740768) in language English (Q1860). What is the correct way to state this? I wasn't able to find existing statements for this. Thanks! --A3nm (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@A3nm: There is IPA transcription (P898), although that might not be exactly what you're looking for. There doesn't appear to be a property for assigning phonemes to letters yet; maybe you could propose one for creation. Jc86035 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Thanks! Yeah, IPA transcription (P898) isn't really it. Not sure I'll have the time to propose the creation of a property right now, but thanks for suggesting! --A3nm (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Multiple identifier types from the same sourceEdit

A question of how to represent multiple identifier types from the same source has arisen at Wikidata:Property proposal/IPTC subject code - more comments, and arguments for or against either model, would be welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Language agnostic templates for politiciansEdit

Hoi, I need help for the creation of a template to be used in multiple Wikipedias in African languages. There are lists of many national politicians, the languages where the same lists exist are en sw ts yo and zu Wikipedia.

As you can see on the example lists, do not expect there to be much (technical) local support; things like columns are often not supported. My objective is to show that once support exists for showing basic information and links do exists showing basis related information it becomes easier to convince high schools to flesh out the lists and templates and make them into more complete articles. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

number of works (P3740) vs. number of accessible worksEdit

Currently, about 8000 items link to folders of the 20th century press archives (Q36948990), which comprise scanned press clippings, sometimes only a few, sometimes thousands of them. However, due to intellectual property restrictions, parts - or even all - of the clippings are not accessible on the web, but only on the premises of ZBW. I would like to update all the PM20 folder ID (P4293) links with qualifiers providing the amount of available documents, both online and in total. number of works (P3740) could be used for one of these numbers, but for the other one I found no fitting property. I suppose the situation that of a total number of works only parts are accessible online, is not so uncommon. Has somebody come across that elsewhere and solved it, or should we consider creating a new property? Jneubert (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Location of monuments that are in the depositEdit

Hello people,

I'm wondering about what should we do with monuments (statues, sculputures etc) that are in deposit? For example, the no label (Q51661216) monument, was taken by municipal prefecture of São Paulo (Q10351100) into the deposit because reasons (risk of being stolen etc), how should we put that information in the Wikidata item. Thanks, Ederporto (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It could have an end date on the street location. The location could also be set to the storage location, if known. Otherwise, it's just located (presumably) in the administrative district, somewhere. Ghouston (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A proposed course of action for dealing with cebwiki/svwiki geographic duplicatesEdit

A series of deletion requests by @Joseagush:, my merging of Wikidata items for French communes, and seeing @Exec8: performing full-content replacements recently on cebwiki made me wonder if we needed a codified procedure for dealing with geographic duplicates from cebwiki/svwiki. As a result I proposed the following in response to the aforementioned deletion requests (and I hope @Lsj: and other Wikidata admins can opine on this as well):

  • Visit the GeoNames pages for the two Wikidata items (linked from the GeoNames ID on both Wikidata items). Verify that the two GeoNames items actually do refer to the exact same place down to the same level of administrative division1.
  • Open a GeoNames account if you do not have one already. Move any appropriate information from the less accurate2 GeoNames item into the more accurate GeoNames item and delete the less accurate GeoNames item (I don't recall offhand if a merge capability exists there).
  • Go to cebwiki and svwiki and replace the entire content of the page corresponding to the less accurate GeoNames item with "#REDIRECT [[{name}]]" (where "{name}" should of course be substituted with the name of the page on that wiki corresponding to the more accurate GeoNames item).
  • Delete the sitelinks for the page corresponding to the less accurate GeoNames item on those sitelinks' associated Wikidata item, delete the statement for that Wikidata item's GeoNames ID, and merge that Wikidata item with the more accurate GeoNames item's Wikidata item.
I imagine this would be a good course of action for those people who frequently get ticked at the plethora of cebwiki/svwiki-only geographic Wikidata items. @Abductive, Ahoerstemeier: from a recently archived June discussion, @Jura1, Pigsonthewing, Hsarrazin, Liuxinyu970226, YMS, GZWDer: from a March complaint. (I will most likely ping folks from the two discussions archived here at some point.)

  1. I say this because I have noticed many conflations of Indian administrative divisions, such as taluka/village or tehsil/census town for example, on other wikis.
  2. I use 'accurate' instead of 'detailed' here because the French commune GeoNames items imported by INSEE have geoshapes that the GeoNames items imported by World Gazetteer do not.

Mahir256 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep in mind that occasionally the administrative excludes the settlement its named after for example Q1002828 is not in Q21347409. There should still be 2 items then, I don't know if France has any like this though. Lucywood (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sounds fine. No doubt there are some real duplicates and some erroneous duplicates. Abductive (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • If you like to proceed that way, this is fine for me. I'm not sure it scales though, but I'd love to see if it did. I don't think it's suitable as a general suggestion on how to proceed to other contributors:
    • Wikidata should be editable without creating accounts at other Wikimedia websites or third party websites.
    • Quality improvements at Wikidata (or lack thereof) should be possible without correcting errors everywhere else.
There are couple of possible approaches that have been identified in earlier discussions of the problem. In the meantime, I suppose most people just try to skip cebwiki/svwiki only items.
--- Jura 07:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I think we should also ping cebwiki sysops @Bentong Isles, Harvzs, Jordz, Josefwintzent Libot: and post the Swedish translation of this section to sv:Wikipedia:Bybrunnen (@Ainali: can you please help us?)
IMHO the GeoNames datas aren't wrong, the wrong is that Lsj himself doesn't know how to insert data links to the existing items (or especially don't know how to find existing articles to add em). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

To my experience, we have several problems:

  • duplication of administrative subdivision and populated places - something done by geonames, but (usually) not by Wikipedias. In some cases this is handy, e.g. when a municipality consists of several distinct populated places, then Wikipedia (usually) omits the one named same-named as the municipality.
  • Elevation data imported from ceb often wrong due to inaccurate coordinates, and even worse often imported here without adding imported from (P143). Especially monadnock (Q1139493)-like hills are affected.
  • Items imported by bot, but without the coordinates, thus making it even more difficult to spot the duplication.
Each of these points need different action, as in principle the geonames database isn't that bad as it seems from the recurring discussions here. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Representation of Wikidata at the Wikimedia movement strategy processEdit

Since nobody spoke up so far, I would like to represent the Wikidata community at the Wikimedia movement strategy 2018-20, more specifically at the working group of Roles & Responsibilities. Besides of my individual Wikimedia movement-wide concerns, my intention is to bring to the forum whatever the community wants to be discussed in that area, and to bring from the working group whatever it has been discussed that might be relevant to the Wikidata community. If there are questions or suggestions, please do comment. I also would appreciate individual endorsments. I will notify the participants of the Wikidata Community User Group, if you are still not in that group you are invited to join.--Micru (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • @Micru: Can you please develop your user profile with at least ~3 sentences to state more about yourself and your positions on Wikidata strategy? I am not able to evaluate your current user profile with regard to your Wikimedia policy positions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Thanks for your question and for your support. I have updated my Wikidata profile with some relevant things I've been doing for the project, plus some information about my stance on global policy. I hope it is now more clear for everyone what I would like to accomplish.--Micru (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Micru: Yes, this is what I wanted. Thanks! Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  Support I have not worked closely with Micru. I also think this user is overly modest and could do a better presentation of their Wikimedia projects on their user page. However I have had some overlap of my projects with theirs and to the extent of my knowledge Micru is a passionate and thoughtful Wikimedia contributor who is appropriate to sit in a discussion as representative of the Wikimedia community and advocate for good things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's how this works? For affiliates, it seems that there can be representatives, but that doesn't seem to apply to the online projects. (Details of the application are at m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Apply/Form - for disclosure, I'm planning on applying as a Wikimedian volunteer, not as a rep of any sort of group). Mike Peel (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: On this page you can see that Projects can be represented too.--Micru (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I must be missing it? I can see "We recommend that movement organizations and groups create internal processes for the selection of their candidates", and you can select "Project community" as "your relation to Wikimedia", but nothing about specific project representation? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, you can consider this the "internal process for the selection of a candidate". If there is the need for something more formal, we can for sure come up with something.--Micru (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Micru: Hi, thanks for proposing you. Bus as Blue Rasberry said, this is difficult to support someone we don't know: I met you in the different talk's pages, but I never worked with you. So my proposition is to create a simplified version of the application form for the selection process in one of your profile's subpage to present your skills and to post some possible answers for the questions of section Describe your expertise and motivation. I don't think personal details like gender or old living locations are important, but more what kind expertise highlighted by personal baseground you can bring. Thank you Snipre (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Snipre: I have started User:Micru/Expertise and motivation with my answers to the questions. I have centered my answers on my volunteer career and not on my private career. For me it would be easier if you (or others) would ask questions about any issue that you want to know my stance about or if there is any aspect that I should elaborate more (like my perspectives on consensus-making, community governance, commons, WMF, etc). There is a lot I can write, but for me it is important to know what is relevant for you. Thanks for your interest in getting to know me better :-)--Micru (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry Micru but I don't feel like you're the best person to represent the Wikidata community. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @VIGNERON: Can you please elaborate?--Micru (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    • This is my personal feeling and it's difficult to elaborate precisely but your contribution to Wikidata is quite low (you're the 820th editor by number of edit) and too episodic. Plus, I'm not convinced by what you wrote on User:Micru/Expertise and motivation. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @VIGNERON: I never got the feeling that the number of contributions meant that a person is more or less capable to represent a community. It is true that I normally rely on manual edits and comments, which take me more time/effort and are not so "visible" (in the way that those contributions don't put me up in the scale you use to measure contributor's worth), but as you can see on my profile I've been serving the community in other ways. What exactly didn't convince you about my Expertise and motivation?--Micru (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see anyone else stepping up to volunteer to represent Wikidata in the Strategy process. Micru gets points in my book for being willing to take this on. - PKM (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I might disagree with some things Micru is going to say, but I encourage him and other Wikidata contributors to participate and express his/their opinion. It's important that different views are voiced and those who want to participate should do so.
    --- Jura 09:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to add, that while disagreement is inevitable, discussing it and trying to find consensus it is something that we should encourage. My views are not set in stone, and I am always open to learn more about other views and improve in the process. It is important to note also that this is not something that a person can do alone, me or anybody taking this role needs participation and people who are interested in talking about the issues that might arise.--Micru (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that there are more experienced people who can take this same step which Micru has taken. nevertheless, I am sure that support can be given so that the goal be attained given that we all want to support other less-experienced fellows who have opted to engage themselves. Eugene233 (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by number of properties they useEdit

Is there a list of Wikipedias by number of properties they use? E.g. on German Wikipedia someone claimed that "Wikidata is no source for Wikipedia." Is that true if it would mean that no value is included in that article names space in dewiki? Are there more Wikipedias like that? 85.180.90.183 19:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't understand your question. In what sense does a Wikipedia "use" a [Wikidata, I presume] property? What exactly is the relation between using a property and accepting Wikidata as a [presumably citable] source [or do you mean something else]? The next sentence I don't follow at all: what does it mean for a [Wikidata] value to be "included in article name space"? For that matter, what do you mean by "value"? A Statement (Q-item + property + value) or something else? And what do you mean by "included": explicitly present, driving content via a template, or something else? And then "like that" in what way: having some contributor who asserts that Wikidata isn't a valid source, or what?? Very confusuing; you may need something two or three times this long to express what you actually mean to ask, an if there is a different language where you can express it more clearly (e.g. German), feel free. - Jmabel (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There are some statistics about Wikidata usage in Wikipedia, see grafana. But they are not very fine graded, for example they do not distiguish between statements which are used to create maintenance categories and statements which are displayed. There is also Category:Templates using data from Wikidata (Q11985372) which lists some templates that use data from Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Info Commons draws from WikidataEdit

I'm guessing that there is something I could do at Camlin Hotel (Q2935180) so that Commons:Category:Camlin_Hotel would say "Seattle, Washington" rather than "Washington, Seattle" in its Wikidata-based infobox, but what would that be? - Jmabel (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Problem was two P131 values. The usage notes for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) says use the lowest level and check that it is linked via a chain of P131s to the higher levels. So the solution was to delete the higher-level location. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Ah. But then you get "Seattle, United States of America" which is not how anyone writes a U.S. location: state is always included. At least for Seattle it's unambiguous, but imagine if it was "Springfield" or "Freeport". Do we maybe need some specific property for U.S. states so that we can end up with a saner result? Or should the template on Commons be specialized to handle U.S. differently and trace up from a U.S. municipality to a state as part of the place name? - Jmabel (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Several ways of skinning that cat; agree that the current output is suboptimal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The line in the infobox template beginning "location -->" needs to be modified so that P131 values are recursively displayed until a value that is instance of (P31) country (Q6256) (or something like that) is reached. Mahir256 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: This is one of the tensions between Wikidata's structure and the ability to access it through Lua modules. The simplest thing here would be to have both "Seattle" and "Washington" as P131 values, but in the right order - then we can access those with one call to a Lua module. The easiest way to do that seems to be to remove the statements then add them back in the right order, which is awkward. The alternative is to try to trace Camlin Hotel (Q2935180) -> located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) -> Seattle (Q5083) -> located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) -> King County (Q108861), but that requires an expensive query through arbitrary access, and doesn't actually give us what we want. An extra step of King County (Q108861) -> located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) -> Washington (Q1223) does, but with another expensive query, and we don't know to stop there unless we do a third expensive check instance of (P31) - which here returns state of the United States (Q35657), which is US-specific, so we need to do all of this for the US, and have a different set of (expensive) queries for other countries. I'm not sure what the best approach is here. (pinging @RexxS: for ideas here!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I wondered about (mis)using Series Ordinal to denote the preferred order for a set of P131 values; would be rather artificial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Since I updated Module:WikidataIB to use getAllStatements/getBestStatements instead of getEntity, it is obliged to use the entity-id (qid) for every call. As far as I am able to tell, all calls are now equivalent and arbitrary access is not expensive if it uses getAllStatements/getBestStatements. If I'm right about that, it would allow us to use far more complex chains of fetching information. I think I probably need to write a new function call that iterates through "located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)" until it finds no P131, then looks for a "short name (P1813)", failing that a label. That would give us Camlin Hotel, Seattle, King County, Washington, USA. I'll try to knock that up tomorrow and we can test it out. If anybody has a better algorithm, or a list of exceptions that can be programmatically implemented, I could use that instead. A list of entities to use as test cases wuld be handy as well. --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
(ec) located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) should only refer to the lowest, most local level; otherwise all sorts of queries will become unpredicatable. Additional higher levels will always be in danger of being removed by bot sweeps.
U.S. states are instances of first-level administrative country subdivision (Q10864048), which should be applicable to a lot of other countries; though in some countries one might prefer second-level divisions, such as UK counties or French departments rather than regions. Jheald (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Maybe a property equivalent to or the same as OpenStreetMap's admin_level key? Jc86035 (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've created a basic function that returns the chain and started a discussion at c:Module talk:WikidataIB #Function to return location chain. Sorry for the cross-project discussion, but the module exists on Commons, not on Wikidata and I need it to demonstrate the function. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"owned by"Edit

I'm finding it very difficult to see the line between owned by (P127) and parent organization (P749). Some cases are clear (a work of art uses the former, a subsidiary company uses the latter) but which applies, for example, to a branch library such as Capitol Hill Branch Library (Q48807472)? - Jmabel (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The property proposal for parent organization (P749) at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/12#P749 gives some information. Ghouston (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/12#P749 gives some information," but it fails to answer my question as to which is more appropriate here. - Jmabel (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I would not use <owned by> here. Instead, I would make Seattle Public Library (Q7442157) <instance of> library system (Q28324850) and use <part of/has part> relations between the system and the branch libraries. However, <parent organization> seems perfectly fine since a library system is clearly an organization (and I would mark Seattle Public Library as a library system in either case). - PKM (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, edited accordingly. - Jmabel (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually for library systems I would just use "has part" and "part of", the way we do for museums that are part of larger institutions. Jane023 (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Park designed by...Edit

Right now, constraints on designed by (P287) and movement (P135) have a type constraint that gives a warning if used on instances of urban park (Q22746). Most urban parks are works of landscape design, and so have a designer; some are clearly identified with a movement. For example:

I think the constraint should be altered to consider these statements appropriate, but I'm not sure how best to do this. Perhaps garden (Q1107656) (of which Q22746 is a subclass) should be considered a subclass of creative work (Q17537576)? That would solve it, I believe- Jmabel (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Death in episode number...Edit

How to better model that a character was killed in specific episode/book/film of series? I use manner of death (P1196) with qualifier described by source (P1343). Or better as reference? Or some other property? And how to distinguish from the case when a death of the character was described in episode (as a flashback, not a main storyline)? --Infovarius (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Infovarius, in general you can use stated in (P248) as a reference to indicate the work where a fictional event is mentioned (both as part of the main storyline and as part of a (in-narrative true) story within this work).
Sometimes present in work (P1441) is used as a qualifier to express that a certain event takes places in a certain work, but mostly to restrict in-narrative facts to a certain story-world (e.g. if Dracula has a son in one work but not in others). So this one would also not be useful to emphasize that a certain event takes place in the main storyline of the work.
It seems to me that start period (P3415)/end period (P3416) as qualifiers could work for this purpose, if one accepts the idea of a storyline being a period (see the property proposal). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for a musical notation datatype for propertiesEdit

Back in August I had inquired about the possibility of a musical notation datatype for use with new properties related to musical compositions (analogous to the mathematical expression datatype for defining formula (P2534)). There is greater interest from those involved in WikiProject India in improving items related to Indian musical modes and Indian musical meters, in the former case requiring properties for separate ascending and descending scales and distinguishing motifs, as well as dominant notes—please bear in mind the links I have made—and I am sure those who work with Western musical compositions may find such a datatype useful for their own purposes (chord progressions, leitmotifs, opening and closing phrases by analogy with first line (P1922) and last line (P3132), perhaps). The use of such a datatype would work well with the Score extension, most likely with LilyPond notation enabled (ABC notation might work if line breaks were allowed in Wikidata property values), as it is necessary to generate appropriate staves and may be useful to sidestep the use of audio (P51) in generating Vorbis files. Since last proposing the datatype I am becoming increasingly convinced that neither Parsons code (P1236) nor a custom format, as suggested in the previous discussion, will ultimately be portable enough for other uses and would make the generation of staves impossible (with the existing property) or needlessly difficult (with a custom format). As a result, I wish to float the idea once more of creating a musical notation datatype before creating a Phabricator task for it. Mahir256 (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shlomo, ChristianKl: from the previous discussion. @Bodhisattwa: as someone who has been taking a recent interest in this. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Lea Lacroix (WMDE): as those who may be interested. Aliva Sahoo
Ananth subray
Aniket
Arjun Nemani
Atudu
Bodhisattwa
CAPTAIN RAJU
Godric ki Kothri
Gopala Krishna A
Gurbakhshish chand
J ansari
Jinoytommanjaly
Jnanaranjan sahu
Jura1
KartikMistry
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
Kritzolina
Mahir256
Manavpreet Kaur
Manojk
Rajeeb Dutta
Mohamed Mahir
MKar
Mouryan
naveenpf
Netha
Pavan santhosh.s
Pinakpani
Planemad
Pranayraj1985
Prtksxna
Ranjithsiji
Rohini
Saisumanth Javvaji
sangappadyamani
Satdeep Gill
Satpal Dandiwal
Shrinivaskulkarni1388
Shypoetess
Stalinjeet Brar
Sushma_Sharma
SuswethaK
Titodutta
Viswaprabha
आर्या जोशी
सुशान्त देवळेकर
हिंदुस्थान वासी
Ravichandra
Khalid khan
  Notified participants of WikiProject India Sweet kate
Galaktos
Sjoerddebruin
AmaryllisGardener
Kosboot
Shingyang-i
Daniele.Brundu
Airon90
Atallcostsky
Cvbncv
LinardsLinardsLinards
Infovarius
Hannolans
Ptolusque
Gilrn
Smallison
Sight Contamination
Moebeus
Pigsonthewing
Mathieudu68
  Notified participants of WikiProject Music

Note the datatype for defining formula (P2534) is a subtype of the "string" datatype, which is limited to 400 characters (which has proved a problem for some uses). What do you anticipate would be the rough size of these musical notations? It might be something that would be better handled by a new Commons file format? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: If we need a larger piece (or multiple smaller pieces—akin to relegating numerous uses of population (P1082) to tabular data) of musical notation from a composition, and if it isn't in anyone's interest to host the entire transcribed composition on Commons in some way, the piece(s) could be relegated to some new data format on Commons or elsewhere. For the moment, though, the properties I envision using this datatype would most likely be smaller samples—maybe a few measures at most—specifically to stay under the limit for the string datatype and to help avoid the possibility of too much unstructured data entering Wikidata (a complaint I have seen regarding some proposed string properties). Mahir256 (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: We already have MuseScore ID (P4097), although there are only several accounts run by the site which actually publish official scores (all scores are associated permanently with their uploader, so we can't really use most of them) so its use would be very limited unless Wikidata somehow acquired an "official" account with which to upload files in some manner. Jc86035 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I am aware of that property, but it is primarily intended for the entire score of a particular composition. This datatype would be intended for a few measures' worth of music, as I noted to Arthur above and as I hope was implied by the sorts of applications I listed in my original post. Mahir256 (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, Jc86035: Some examples of the sorts of properties that would benefit from this explicit datatype:

(For completeness, the primary dominant note is no label (Q12434661) and the secondary dominant note is no label (Q12423481).) There are some melodic modes for which the scales and motif are much longer, but I believe none would exceed the length imposed for the string datatype. Mahir256 (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Intuitively, it seems to me that storing the data at commons would be preferable. Having a property that can only store the notation of short songs but not of long songs would likely be annoying to people who use it. Are there arguments against putting the data on commons? ChristianKl❫ 18:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: Apologies if I'm drawing too many unneeded parallels to the present status of LaTeX equations, but I think the situations here are very similar. We have migrated quite a bit away from storing images of equations on Commons to simply rendering them on wikis where they are needed (whether on Wikipedia, on Wikisource, and now here), even as we don't store full-fledged mathematical derivations in statements here due to issues with the maximum length of the string datatype. Similarly we have the ability to migrate from storing images of music snippets on Commons to simply rendering them where they are needed (whether on Wikisource, on Wikipedia, and potentially here), and I am sure it will not be feasible to store full scores of pieces as statements here for the same technical reason. As such the use cases I have suggested above are intended to exclude the possibility of storing entire scores, just as entire derivations are excluded from being stored here. Mahir256 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Merge pagesEdit

Can no label (Q27921656) and platform economy (Q50867887) be merged? Both are about the "economic and social activity facilitated by platforms": the former focuses on the economic actor while the latter covers the economic activity. That's more a difference of form than substance though. Freedatum (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Already done by you. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #317Edit

Try the prototype of the new termbox on mobileEdit

Hello all,

As a next step of the termbox project, following the first feedback loop about the termbox, the Wikidata team developed a first prototype of the termbox on mobile. We would love to have your feedback on it. Please have a look at the information on this page and give us feedback on the talk page. Thanks! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Cross Lang Conflicts"Edit

Some editors may be interested in this discussion on the English Wikipedia, where Xinbenlv has demonstrated results from a partly closed-source system to find conflicts in data between Wikipedias. I asked him to post here but he has not yet, so I am linking to the original discussion. Please post comments there. Jc86035 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Continent of citiesEdit

Is the continent cities belong to represented in Wikidata? For example: Does Wikidata know that Ankara (Q3640) belongs to Asia (Q48)? As far as I see Wikidata does know that Ankara (Q3640) belongs to Turkey (Q43), but Turkey (Q43) belongs to two continents. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jobu0101: This should ideally be inferred from the continent Ankara Province (Q2297724) is on (contrast with the continent Edirne Province (Q83102)—also in Turkey (Q43)—is on). Mahir256 (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Ideally because it isn't? Do you also know the answer to my continent related question here? --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This is not limited to the continent property. There are also properties like located in time zone (P421) or official language (P37) added to every village, even they are same all up the hierarchy to the country. As there is nothing like a calculated statement within Wikidata (not sure about what's possible with Lua in Infoboxes) we probably have to live with the redundancy. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick Statements not creating itemsEdit

Hi, today I'm trying to create some items through Quick Statements, but it is stuck forever in "running". Anyone know what is the problem? Ederporto (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In QS2, this may indicate a bug in the syntax - QS1 would skip the error but QS2 gets hung up on it. Could you post an example of what you're trying to create? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also have problem with adding statements. It is stuck. For example, Q4827920 P1082 47 Xaris333 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick Statements is not working for me either. User:Magnus Manske is that something you can restore? --Jarekt (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Still frozen :-( Jheald (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't work for me either, still stuck forever in "running". There aren't errors in JavaScript console. @Magnus Manske:. --Rotpunkt (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Server response:

<b>Fatal error</b>:  Cannot access empty property in <b>/data/project/quickstatements/public_html/quickstatements.php</b> on line <b>561</b><br />

QS was last modified on Friday. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Fixed now. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2018 (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) 06:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

How to add to an existing item the label in a new language?Edit

I tried with the gadget "Labels List" and in the end got a message "API error". Then I tried with the Beta version "List of Headers". In the end I got: ✘ Error : (permissiondenied) You do not have the permissions needed to carry out this action. Tue Jun 19 2018 23:32:07 GMT+0300 (FLE Daylight Time)

It is true that on this page (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4233718) there is a padlock saying "this page has been semi-protected". Can this be the reason for the above message or something else?

Best regards Evgeni

@Dimitrove.tmp: Welcome to Wikidata! The padlock icon means that you need to contribute a bit more; in particular, your account needs to be at least four days old and have at least 50 edits on it before you can edit that item. Mahir256 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mahir256.

About the empty Query namespaceEdit

Currently we have Query: namespace, along with its Query talk:, but both are having no pages.

As we now use WQS, I think both namespaces can be safety dropped, anyone oppose? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that was the idea of the query namespace. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, this is something we might use in the future for automated list generation. If you don't mind, we should keep it for now :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

General topic propertiesEdit

Another new navbox:

{{General topic properties}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

How to indicate a topic intersection when not a categoryEdit

Medical facilities of Seattle (Q6806529): undoubtedly I was wrong to use category combines topics (P971) here because this is not a category, but I don't see how else to express this. - Jmabel (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Similar issue would arise for Museums and galleries of Seattle (Q6941146). I see someone there tried "is a list of" but that's not OK because neither of these is a "list article". - Jmabel (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if this is what you need, but facet of (P1269) serves a similar purpose I think. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
ie subclass of (P279) = medical facility (Q4260475) + facet of (P1269) = Seattle (Q5083). Also location (P276) = Seattle (Q5083). Though, is that sufficient? Jheald (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
It's a list, so say so, like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I usually agree with you on most things, but in this case I think you are wrong. Look at the en-wiki article. It is not a "list article" or anything like. It is a prose overview of medical facilities in Seattle; it doesn't even contain a list. - Jmabel (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
"Other hospitals in the community include Swedish Medical Center/Ballard (formerly Ballard General Hospital), Swedish Medical Center/Cherry Hill (formerly Providence Seattle Medical Center), and Swedish Medical Center/First Hill (Swedish's original location); Virginia Mason Hospital, on First Hill; the Seattle Division of the Department of Veterans Affairs' Puget Sound Health Care System on Beacon Hill; the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Cascade; and Kaiser Permanente's Capitol Hill campus (outpatient only, formerly Group Health Central Hospital and Family Health Center)." Looks like a list to me. Also, the page is in en:Category:Washington (state)-related lists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, there's one list-like paragraph in the middle (I didn't notice that at a quick scan) but "First Hill is widely known as 'Pill Hill' for its concentration of hospitals and other medical offices. In addition to being the current home of Harborview, Swedish, and Virginia Mason, it is also the former location of Maynard, Seattle General, and Doctors Hospitals (all of which merged into Swedish) and Cabrini Hospital," and "In 1974, a 60 Minutes story on the success of the then four-year-old Medic One paramedic system called Seattle 'the best place in the world to have a heart attack.' Some accounts report that Puyallup, a city south of Seattle, was the first place west of the Mississippi River to have 911 emergency telephone service,' hardly seem like list content to me. Still, if en-wiki counts it as a list, I guess that suffices. - Jmabel (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing this pageEdit

When I click the [Edit] link next to a second-level head on this page, the editor is opening a different section. Can someone look into this? Thanks! - PKM (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@PKM: This often happen when a section has been added or deleted, between you fetching the page and starting to edit it. Try refreshing the page in your browser, then editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks, Andy. - PKM (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2018 (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) 06:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"individual aircraft"Edit

I raised this question before, but as part of a recently-archived discussion of several different matters. This particular question was never answered, at least not to my satisfaction. Really, the only answer I had was an IP contributor telling me my question wasn't reasonable. I still believe it was.

Coming in as an experienced Wikimedian and database developer but relatively new to Wikidata, I would expect that individual aircraft (Q21051516) would be a class that is to be used for individual aircraft. Since it has no description, and it is not that, it is very hard for me to imagine what it is. - Jmabel (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I interpret this item in the same way as you. This means instance of (P31) should be replaced by subclass of (P279). --Pasleim (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pasleim: I was informed by several experienced users in the prior exchange that my interpretation was not how it should be used, and there is not a single individual aircraft that uses it as the target of instance of (P31). There had been a few; one result of the prior discussion is that those were removed. - Jmabel (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Some blocked user deleted the statements. Obviously they should be restored.
    --- Jura 05:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two issues:
  • I agree on the second point. The first point might be theoretically correct, but fails at Wikidata. Given that all items using P31=aircraft are about aircraft models, it's clearly not working. There needs to be a way to reliably identify such items in Wikidata.
    --- Jura 09:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would one use P31 of individual aircraft (Q21051516) when a P31 of aircraft (Q11436) means exactly the same thing? Do we have any other classes of items where, instead of saying instance of the item class, we say instance of an individual item of the item class. We do not, as far as I know, have 'individual house', 'individual car', 'individual human', etc. Jura has not, afaik, explained why the item was put together. IIRC it seems to complement a wikipedia category, which category does seem to have a good excuse for its existence. But the fact that the cat exists & demands a corresponding wikidata entry, does not then demand that we take a non-standard approach for the P31 of individual aircraft. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • We do use Q5 for all humans as using subclasses by countless other possible items aren't efficient (we could easily use P31=(fe)male). I don't think it matters what the actual label of Q21051516 is or if you use another item.
    --- Jura 12:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to a solution that removed individual aircraft (Q21051516) entirely, and where aircraft models were instance of (P31) aircraft model (Q15056995) rather than aircraft (Q11436). If individual aircraft (Q21051516) can go away, fine. What I object to is a situation where it exists, is not marked in any way as deprecated, but shouldn't be used in what seems to me the obvious manner. The current situation is very confusing. - Jmabel (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: See en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress - it's up to us to fix things, but it will never be perfect! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a mergeEdit

What's the right way to request an item merge? no label (Q49655286) is certainly a duplicate of Lummi Island (Q937204) - Jmabel (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to request an item merge, you can do it yourself. For instructions, see Help:Merge. --Pasleim (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2018 (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) 06:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Elevation above sea levelEdit

What can it possibly mean to have the (current) statement

The islands, obviously, have a minimum elevation of 0, and their highest point is the peak of Mount Constitution (Q6920229), at 734 metres. Is there some useful way to express that in San Juan Islands (Q1196315)? Because the current statement is like saying "part of this house is 34 cm off the ground." - Jmabel (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For extended geographical entities this really makes no sense - then we need either a completely new datatype to encode a range of values, or with what is currently available could add the highest and lowest elevation with the qualifier applies to part (P518) set to highest point (Q3393392) or lowest point (Q35691103). Take a look of how I adjusted it in Aachen (Q1017), that way I think it makes sense, including to describe which place was chosen as the random median point within the entity. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
PS - you know highest point (P610)? I have added that now both to the archipelago as well as the corresponding island. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Ahoerstemeier: If that is the right way to do it, then there is a constraint that should be changed: right now, this gets a warning that "coordinate location is not a valid qualifier for elevation above sea level." - Jmabel (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that warning. The coordinates are IMHO useful, especially if the extreme points cannot become items to be linked with highest point (P610)/deepest point (P1589). Sometimes the highest point is a mountain peak, but especially the lowest point is often just a place along a river, or even a coast line. I have no idea if there is any recommended way to handle these, it's just what I came up with. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Bot questionEdit

This is from a long time ago, so maybe it's something long since fixed, but how did someone born in Nebraska and who made her career mainly in Seattle get designated as a "British artist"? - Jmabel (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nellie_Cornish&diff=next&oldid=594725354
--- Jura 05:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

In short Garbage in, garbage out (Q1569381)? - Jmabel (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Maybe: Wikipedia isn't always the optimal source?
    --- Jura 09:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

absence of property suggestionsEdit

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
{
	?item wdt:P31 wd:Q11266439 ; wikibase:statements 1
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
LIMIT 100

Try it!

Any ideas why no properties are suggestions when one tries any of the above items?

Normally, I'd expect template's main topic (P1423) to appear.
--- Jura 15:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a template that links to both Wikipedia and WikidataEdit

Is there a template that provides icon links to Wikipedia + Wikidata? I.e. Similar to Template:Claim but with the Wikipedia Globe or "W" icon and Wikidata, instead of Reasonator and SQID. I'm sure I've seen that somewhere, but cannot find it.

E.g. I recall something that looked like: Foobar       or   Foobar    

I'm specifically wondering if that (desired) template can be (or is already) used in translatable pages at metawiki and mediawikiwiki and commons when linking to article pages in the Wikipedias, but slightly improving upon the common case of just having a single Enwiki link (which often doesn't get translated).

Note: I do know how to make a template to match my demos above, I'm just hoping/believing that something already exists. Thanks! Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Error messageEdit

Can someone look at Rem Cashow (Q43270605) and see why I am getting an error message for date of baptism, the math looks right to me. --RAN (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The minimum and maximum bounds for date of baptism have units (years), and apparently units are not to be used with minimum and maximum bounds. Perhaps this is why the calculation is failing? Mahir256 (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently constraints of the type difference within range constraint (Q21510854) cannot use a unit - see the error on date of baptism in early childhood (P1636) - so it's getting confused. I don't know if this means you can't practically use a date-based constraint here, or if there's a practical workaround (eg counting by days) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I am going to take the unit (year) off the constraint and see if the error message goes away. Ohh, I see, the unit is not coded in "difference within range constraint" it lies deeper in the calculation. Maybe someone more familiar should work on it. If it is coded deeper, then it may affect more calculations that I am not aware of, if I make a change. --RAN (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Google Knowledge Graph IDEdit

Is there an easy way for me to find the Google Knowledge Graph ID? I downloaded the API and receiver user rights from Google, but it is still not obvious how to obtain the ID. I may have asked this before, but cannot find the answer. If answered, I will migrate it to the Google Knowledge Graph ID discussion page. --RAN (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Location mapEdit

Is there a difference between locator map image (P242) and location map (P1943), and if so what? - Jmabel (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: See the examples on the talk page, with luck that should help clarify at least a bit. Jheald (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense, but then why on earth do we have ? - Jmabel (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Blonde laceEdit

All of my sources indicate that blonde lace (Q3816685) was originally made in "natural silk color" and later also in white or black. How would you model "natural silk color" for property color (P462)? (It's a pale yellow or cream color, but I'm having trouble finding a source that says so specifically.) - PKM (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's call "練色"(neri-iro, natural silk color) in japanese. (R:237 G:228 B:205 [2]). hope this helps.--Afaz (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes that helps! I can use that to add it as an item. - PKM (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Q7750478 and Q30740038 need to be mergedEdit

Hi all, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30740038 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7750478 are the same document, so they need to be merged. I don't know how where to request it, as it's the first time I'm looking at Wikidata and it's quite confusing (to me). It'd be great if someone could just get it done. I'm not coming back to this forum to read this answer. Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:249:701:6350:f86c:c167:ebd3:8525 (talk • contribs) at 00:13, June 22, 2018‎ (UTC).

I have merged them. However, there may be a purpose to having another item for the English translation referenced in the enwiki article (I note the ISBN numbers on frwiki and enwiki differ). ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a link resolver for URLs stored in Wikidata?Edit

From a private website, I'd like to link to websites of various institutions. Example: I have a photo of the Louvre museum and would like to link to the Louvre's website. And why not use Wikidata's community-maintained database for those ever-changing URLs... So: is there a link I could use for "the highest-ranked URL of property P856 in Item Q19675" and that doesn't require additional clicks by my users (I guess it's no problem in SQPARQL, but that first gives a table, not the actual website I would like to link to)? Seems pretty straightforward, but I cannot find anything that does the trick. If someone chooses to program it, I would suggest to include a second option with a landing page that says "In 10 seconds, you are redirected you to the URL ... as stored in Wikidata item Q19675" or something similar. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

a man created godEdit

Italic textis god created a man or is a man created a god?you people remember that every one has a rich mind that's to say no fool idea[1]to mmy meditation .i know that every one is abl to do it so ,in the bigging i was too young boy and when i sitting under a tree a sprit came and tell me to pick up a smal piece of tree.and it was for sweetpotatoes and i picked it up and by calling it's name about teen times i und that name it was meaningless name .you peaple i am telling you the truth that was so crazzy

  1. a man created god