Wikidata

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/07

< Wikidata:Project chat‎ | Archive‎ | 2016
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Help with defining Roller Coaster properties

I've started Wikidata:WikiProject Roller Coasters and I'm now trying to define the properties that could be used for defining a specific roller coaster (Q204832)     . There are many that I'm unsure of and hope for some guidance from the community. I've started to go through the template Template:Infobox roller coaster (Q10980443)      and tried to find some of the parameters here.

  • Status - indicates whether the ride is in operation or not. Could be like "open" or "closed".
  • Track type - This could be something like Out and back roller coaster (Q2796445)     , Twister, Moebius Loop, Terrain etc. according to the existing templates.
  • Lift type - Coasters uses different methods of lifting the carts in the beginning of the track. Could be a chain lift or hydraulic launch track etc.
  • Height - probably means the highest point of the coaster.
  • Drop - the height of the highest drop.
  • Length - the length of the track.
  • Speed - which probably is top speed.
  • Number of inversions - the number of track elements that differs from "normal track". For instance loops or corkscrews.
  • Ride duration - how long it takes to ride the coaster. Is duration (P2047)   good here?
  • Drop angle - the highest angle of a drop.
  • Capacity - number of riders per hour.

There are probably a bunch of more properties, but those seems to be the most common ones. Are there already suitable properties on Wikidata that could be used, or do we need to create new ones? //Mippzon (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

My initial thoughts:
I would be more inclined to do something like "has part: drop" with qualifiers for the height and angle. I agree on needing a new property for the angle (which could possibly be more generic as long as it's clear where the angle is measured from). That seems better if there are multiple drops and it also means that people can't accidentally end up with the wrong height if they don't check for qualifiers. Wouldn't there be a lift for each drop? - Nikki (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Thanks for your input! I'm transferring the most obvious ones, like height, length and duration to the project page. //Mippzon (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
yes, "has part: drop" with qualifiers is a better formation that my initial thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: That makes sense! Then we just need to define a new object that describes the drop itself, so that it could be added as "has part". I could not find any suitable ones in my searches. //Mippzon (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Capacity" (meaning number of riders per hour) now proposed as "throughput" at Wikidata:Property proposal/throughput. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Ways to find data for specific properties across multiple wikis

At Wikidata:Property proposal/tracking category with pages including information suitable for property, there is a proposal for a way to find such tracking categories. I would be interested in finding other ways to do that.
--- Jura 08:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there a generic property for a database ID?

If the database does not have a Wikidata property, which property would I use to reference the item in the database? --Susannaanas (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

described at URL (P973) was made for that purpose AFAIK. I’m not sure whether it’s in good shape. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

TED speakers challenge

The challenge is going well with contributions from 42 languages, but only one contribution on Wikidata !?. Please consider adding some referenced statements to speaker items! The challenge runs until the 6th. https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/TED_conferences/TED_speakers_challenge thanks, Jane023 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Slideshare

How do I link to SlideShare for the presentation used in a presentation or to Commons for that matter ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Creating items against AbuseFilter 85

Hi,

I'm working on importing a list of emergency numbers by International Telecommunication Union (Q376150). For this I need a bigger amount of new items like 114 (Q2945964). The phone number (P1329) values are always 3 or more digits, therefore AbuseFilter 85 interrupts the edits. Since they are a lot, I'd like to do them using my bot via API. How can I overwrite the filter (similar to the GUI)?

Thank you, -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek, YMS: pinging editors of the filter -- T.seppelt (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I never edited this filter and I don't know how bots can overcome abuse filter warnings. However, I also don't know what should stop us from excluding bots in the filter's condition. Any objections anyone? --YMS (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry for mixing this up. I'm not familiar with AbuseFilter edit logs. I think this would be a good idea even though they should be technically another way. --T.seppelt (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
We could set the filter to "tag" while you do these changes.
--- Jura 16:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Or we could change the filter so that it doesn't catch these legitimate uses. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
This would be the best solution. We could add \d+? --T.seppelt (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if this is a good idea. Beyond the emergency numbers, is there a need for it? Once most are added, we can just restore the current setting. It will still allow adding them. The filter is here to ensure we get most entries correctly formatted. Currently I think it does that, compared to the problems we had earlier, I think this is an improvement. Note that this setting is different from the constraint on the property itself.
--- Jura 06:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
In addition to emergency numbers there are other special short numbers (e.g. directory enquiries, speaking clocks, NHS Direct (Q6954125) etc), numbers that are only possible to use domestically (e.g. freephone services), SMS short codes, and others that don't match the usual requirements. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
It should still be possible to set them.
--- Jura 13:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
For now, I excluded bots in the filter's conditions. This way User:T.seppelt's bot run should be possible without the filter stopping the bot. Of course, if we come to some result in which way the filter can be optimized, this can be done with or without removing my extension again. --YMS (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@YMS: thank you. It worked, -- T.seppelt (talk)

Property for titles of an association football team

Hello. Is there a property to add to show the titles of an association football team? Xaris333 (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by a title of an association football club? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 00:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Leicester City F.C. (Q19481) won the title of 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732). How to add all the titles (competitions) a team have won in the team's page? Xaris333 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
A competition is its own item and with qualifiers you indicate year of the title. GerardM (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GerardM like this [1]? I used winner (P1346) but I am not sure if it is correct. Xaris333 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That would do nicely as far as I am concerned. I can also imagine that you register the number of points a side has in a competition. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

GerardM Or maybe victory (P2522) is the correct one? Xaris333 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #216

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Merging problems

Can someone merging en:Category:Eurozone (Q8950770) with de:Kategorie:Europäische Währungsunion (Q8950770) ? --92.76.115.96 11:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Merge.
--- Jura 11:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The two concepts mean something different. The German Wikipedia says in de:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europäische_Wirtschafts-_und_Währungsunion#Mitgliedstaaten_der_EWWU that all 28 EU-Countries are members of "Europäische Währungsunion". It's not limited to those countries in the Eurozone. ChristianKl (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand that help. 92.76.115.96 11:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There is this answer:

"The link enwiki:Category:Eurozone is already used by item Q7130479. You may remove it from Q7130479 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic. " 92.76.115.96 11:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See previous section, please don't create countless sections on the same topic.
--- Jura 11:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
i dont understand, what do you mean with "previous section" ? Why is there no translation in German language, so i could better unterstand the merging process ? 92.76.115.96 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to say the whole merging process is too complicated for "normal" users. 92.76.115.96 11:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous section is at #Fusion_problems.
The German translation of the help page is at Help:Merge/de.
If you don't understand the English error message, please try Wikidata:Forum.
--- Jura 11:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting external identifier

How do I add or request an external identifier? There is a property (Swedish Film Database person ID (P2168)) for SFDb person ID (identifier for a person on the Swedish Film Database (SFDb)) but none for DFI person ID (identifier for a person on the Danish Film Institute (DFI)). -abbedabbtalk 17:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't Danish National Filmography person ID (P2626) what you're looking for? Multichill (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ahaaa! Yes it is! Thank you! -abbedabbtalk 19:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants

 

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals from July 1st to August 2nd to fund new tools, research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds, Project Grants can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through July 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 15:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

SPARQL

 
Recent twitter poll showing about SPARQL

An interesting poll recently showed that even followers of Wikidata on Twitter have not all learned about SPARQL yet. 2016 should be the year where every member of the community should teach at least 5 people about SPARQL. Please also consider sharing your SPARQL skills at conferences. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Sind wir hier bei einer Sekte, wo jeder Gläubige 5 neue Jünger gewinnen muss? Go out and tell 5 people about the blessings of SPARQL...--79.242.211.194 11:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Praise be! Plant a SPARQL seed! In the words of the holy church of Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption (Q20831530) --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Might also be worth launching a "request for query" page. Not all wikimedians will learn a language of such a complexity. It's not that hard for a power user and for someone who knows computing, but probably far too much hard to write SPARQL for most people. So ... they either need people to write SPARQL for them or really ergonomic interfaces. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I like that idea. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I still prefer WikiData Query (WDQ) for simple tasks.--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kopiersperre. WikiData Query (WDQ) is much easier to learn.
Tobias1984, I would like to plant an SPARQL seed, but the ground needs to be well fertilized with WDQ fertlizer for it to work.
--FocalPoint (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is already translators from wdq to sparql anyway. Wikibase property paths are also on the go (see Module:PropertyPath for those interested - no doc and just unfinished code yet, so a little early to present yet) and will be translated in sparql in the future (teaser ?grandfather wdt:P22/wdt:P22 ?grandson can already be used to query grandfathers in SPARQL, it's in extension to manage qualifiers and english labels such that for example we can write "father/father/child/child" to get the cousins, or "subclass of/union of>of" to get all the "of" qualifiers of the "union of" statements of parent classes). There is also queries or query parts template generators in Category:Partial query and Category:Query template. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome to use WDQ2SPARQL translator: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wdq2sparql/. It can also help you to learn SPARQL :) --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 06:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree, that SPARQL isn't very easy to learn. I had some knowledge of SQL, which helped me in the very, very beginning (I knew what Select, where, group by etc. means), but still had much problems. Thanks to Jura and co at SPARQL talk page, who helped me answering my stupid questions :) OK, agree, that WDQ is easier to learn, but in SPARQL you can make more natural queries. I still don't get how to use tree in WDQ properly :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing. I think we should link Wikidata:SPARQL query service/queries somewhere (talk page also contains A LOT of useful info). --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the category I'm in - I know what SPARQL is but I have no idea how to use it. I'm not really what you'd consider a technical user - I don't know any programming languages and have never used SQL. If someone taught me (in person) the basics and maybe also the basics +1 then I could probably learn more advanced stuff myself, but I can't bootstrap from no knowledge. I've tried to modify the example WDQ queries without success. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe File:Wikimania 2016 Hackathon SPARQL.pdf could help a bit. Of course, learning in person is the best, but still... --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

SPAROL 2

I am using

SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q476028 . ?item wdt:P571 wd:. }

I know its wrong at the last wd. I want to find all pages with P31 --> Q476028 that have any value in P571. (So if a pages with P31 --> Q476028 does not have P571 will not list). Xaris333 (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Xaris333: If you say ANY-VALUE that means that you have to store it in a variable. This should work:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?any
WHERE
{
 ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q476028 .
  ?item wdt:P571 ?any.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}
Try it!
--Tobias1984 (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Tobias1984 It doesn't work. In the list there a lot of pages that do not have P31 --> Q476028. Xaris333 (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Xaris333: I get 8296 results and all of them have those two statements. What item did you find that doesn't have it? --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Οκ, its working. Many thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that also this: 

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
WHERE
{
 ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q476028 .
  ?item wdt:P571 []
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}
Try it!

works if you don't care about the value of ?any. [] means "something, but I don't care what it is". --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Date formatting in Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese

The dates are written in Portuguese with prepositions "de" between day and month and between month and year. Ex: "5 de julho de 2016" (July 5, 2016), "3 de dezembro de 2010" (December 3, 2010). Currently these dates are being displayed as "5 julho 2016" and "3 dezembro 2010". Is it possible to fix it? There are other problems in the date formatting, but I consider this the main. --Almondega (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Phab:T63958. --Stryn (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Colours of a team

Hello. Is there a property to use to add the colours of a (football) team? Xaris333 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There is the general color (P462) which could be used with the appropriate qualifier. Jared Preston (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiObject project proposal

Hi, how about a wikipedia about objects? Ok Instead of generic articles of , for example, "Ballpoint pen" or "Bic cristal" it would be "Ballpoint pen Bic cristal 2014"

Doing these for millions of objects would allow people to have an open, free, universal and central place to refer specific objects.

Some possible applications:

  • Creating neutral and standard lists: Nowadays if anyone create, for example, a tutorial for building something (DIY projects, receipts, ...) they have to link all items to a comercial or no-neutral web which could change its url in the future or redirect it to adds or whatever. Lists could be created in external webpages linking wikimedia objects webpage or/and could be created as category pages in Wikipedia. For example, currently, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_of_the_Year article lists cars which won COTY award but not links to the specific car (AUDI A3 Hatchback 2012 - Present) but generic serie (Audi A3). The good thing at this point it's that to start creating object lists only item name is necessary, no infoboxes or description needed.
  • Universal repository for inventories: Lot of business fill their inventories again and again with same data ("cardboard box 50x30x15", "step by step nema motor 17", ... ) they should be able to import this data from a open website with their corresponding info like GTIN , SKU , Barcode... and more in the future weight, size, ...
  • Encourage Recycling and Reutilitation: Imagine if we use wikidata properties (https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties/Generic) like "has part" and "part of" , people will find other uses for objects, or discover were to find
  • Social activism and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Companies have info and metrics about their costumers (habits, location, ...) why not costumers have info about companies products, who manufacture what?, what products have a good carbon footprint?, what products have been retired from some problem?, what are Fair Trade?. This also can moved companies do better.

Very rough roadmap:

  1. At the very begining, using wikidata infrestructure, objects would only have common info like "name", " image", "related links" (datasheets?), GTIN. First use cases could be doing lists or grouping objects by categories.
  2. Step by step new fields could be added like "manufacturer" , "tags", ...
  3. A separated website could be created. wikiobject.org isn't availiabe so url could be something like objects.wikpedia.org
  4. In a long-term in order to explote all the possibilities of this project more complex fields and relations would have to be managed, like for example "fridges with energy class A+++ and width less than 80 cm", which could be easy if all always were similar but nothing further from reality A friend of mine and me tried to build a demo version in an home-made apache cassandra cluster four years ago, but we don't have enough resources and knowledge for that.

Funding

In my humble opinion, problem with wikipedia funding It's that most part of its users don't see culture as a need (sorry for that, I am a sporadic donor). In Wikiobject case I think it could rather be different.

If part of companies business lies on this project, companies will be very inclined to donate to improve performace, usability, etc.. maybe similar to what happens in Linux.

Where came this need from? Data needed for some software to run, product vissibility, costumer requests, etc ... , no advertisement needed, It could be a need and standart.

I trully believe that world need something like this, and the correct people to do it, to warranty openness and independence, are you.

thanks for your time and attention,

grettings

Qupro (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I think your use of the term "object" here is not quite correct. What you are proposing is a finer granularity than wikidata currently offers, but not to create a database of every instance of every car ever made (indexed by Vehicle Identification Number) or every instance of every ball point pen (does each pen get a unique serial number) or similarly for other consumer products. Given that every known living species or domestic variety is eligible for a wikidata item, I suppose it wouldn't be crazy to extend that to every kind of manufactured product as well. That is, wikidata may already be able to do what you want if WD:N is suitably accommodating. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Most pens and other small, quickly consumed items usually have a batch number (as in, a unique number for a batch of objects). That said, the user seems to think Wikidata is Wikipedia, which it is not. --Izno (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he is asking an item for "every car ever made", he is asking for an item for "every model of car ever made" (or fridge, or pen or whatever). That is more than the very inclusive enwikipedia (although we do have a lot of items about cameras or phones), but not far away than the range of granularity of wikidata. Items of that type have production identifiers I guess. Also even if he "seems to think Wikidata is Wikipedia" (which is not true, IMHO), he is posing a question that relates to wikidata. He is talking of a lot of things in a wider perspective, and with limited knowledge, and that creates confusion, but in the end he wants to know if a Wikidata:WikiProject can be created for "objects"... or something we could define at least as "industrial products". Whatever he is hoping for the future, which is no interest for wikidata, this step is worth at least discussing. I am not an expert, but at least discussing what is the granularity and if properties such as "length" for an industrial products are ok is "interesting".--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I refer model name not every object of these model or batch that was produced. For example "Dell XPS 13 2015 (9343) Laptop", only one wikidata item for this not an item for every laptop of this model (serial number) neither batch. I thought in wikidata instead of wikipedia because more interesting object information would be , at least at the begining, related with wikidata statements rather than with wikipedia descriptions. My doubt is if the wikidata community see this idea viable, well-focused, interesting, etc... Qupro (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought Wikidata was aiming to provide knowledge and suddenly I have the impression that WD will finish as a Walmart's catalog (change walmart by any other big commercial stores). Snipre (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Object information is also knowledge, for instance imagine webs like http://www.instructables.com/, they are continuously refering specfic object models to show people to make things. A good problem example could be this wikipage for building a 3d printer which is refering to one of the objects needed, a stepper motor, http://reprap.org/wiki/NEMA_17_Stepper_motor, why we fill and refill same information (current, power, ...) over thounsand of webs when it is always the same and could be referred? I understand that the dimension of the project is eneourmous but I am only asking if wikidata is the place for plant the seed. I dont believe in a private/commercial solution for this. Qupro (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We have plenty of corporate and commercial things on wikidata, as well as things in traditional academic domains, just as we do in wikipedia. Qupro has a good specific example. @Qupro: one issue with wikidata is the CC-0 nature of the database; do you have some example source datasets with this kind of data that could be imported without violating license restrictions? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I 'm not sure to what extent CC-0 would be a problem, I think that companies should see an advantage in being listed in webs and wikidata. Anyway we can go safe and start with Open Source Hardware objects like arduino/genuino (https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/Products), and components that even have free datasheets to download. Open Source Hardware Community share a lot of things with wikidata community and they probably be interesed too, I'm gonna to ask some of them. Build up another bridge between both could be nice. Other option could be use antiques with no actual manufacturers, I have just google "antique clocks models" and first result is a beginning. But I really think that if people use this "WikiObjectsData" companies would prefer be that not be in. Qupro (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
No, the data sheets aren't free. The are licensed under a restrictive license. The copyright notice on the webpage says Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. which isn't compatible with CC0. ChristianKl (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I talked with open source hardware community members and also see a great potencial in this. One of them is working in a Open Source prototyping board (https://github.com/FPGAwars/icezum) so I created two example wikidata items releated with it: the open source prototype board itself (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25026145) and one of its components, a SMD resistance (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25030181). IMHO Wikidata is the best host for this idea. Also It already have propierties like "connector (P2935)" , "power consumed (P2791)", "source code repository (P1324)", "sponsor (P859)", "manufacturer (P176)", these two last ones could may companies contributors and proclive too appear here and to opensource data. I see a lot possibilities, problems , solutions , etc, but i don't know if this is the place to expand the conversation.Qupro (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Qupro: This sounds great - you might want to start a "WikiProject" to focus discussion on, for example, the needs of open source hardware. Particularly if some new properties need to be proposed, it's a good place to review the existing properties and what you need. See the list of Wikidata:WikiProjects - linked from the Community Portal and look at how those have been set up and structured. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Qupro: the main funnel here are human resources. If you create a new wikidata project I would be happy to show it to wikipedia local science, engineering and technology projects, and maybe village pumps if it's not enough. I hope you can find a sufficient number of volunteers. I can't be one of them, not my field... I can show this conversation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips @ArthurPSmith: and @Alexmar983:. I move all the information and discussion to Wikidata:WikiProject_Objects and find an incredible releated project Wikidata:WikiProject_Electronic_Components I will try to contact with them, I am not used to user talk pages yet.Qupro (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You should contact the main author User:Manta Ray DeeJay, who is probably fr-N so at least you have two language. If you know how to contact any other community off-wiki, help yourself. IMHO you can try some merge in a single project even if new volunteers arrive. Projects are just containers, talks can be used to host different types of specific thread. I would encourage very specific projects only after a while.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

From an embassy's QID, get its represented country

I wrote this query to get the list of embassies and the country each embassy is located in.

QUESTION: Now, how to get the country that is represented by each embassy?

For instance: I have the QID of Embassy of Switzerland, London (Q5369879), and I want to get Switzerland (Q39).

Scraping it from the label might work, but is there a better solution? If there is no property yet, how about creating one? Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

In a couple of discussions about embassies I suggested using operator (P137) for the represented country of an embassy (along with operating area (P2541) if it serves a different area than just the host country), e.g.
⟨ British Embassy Holy See ⟩ country (P17)   ⟨ Italy (Q38)      ⟩
operator (P137)   ⟨ United Kingdom (Q145)      ⟩
operating area (P2541)   ⟨ Holy See (Q159583)      ⟩
- see Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/05#country (P17) of an embassy? and Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/06#P17 and military bases. A couple of people agreed with this suggestion and nobody objected, but I have no idea how many embassies (if any) actually use this structure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Aude, Nikki, Innocent bystander, Laddo: who took part in the linked discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
"operator" sounds perfect, thanks a lot! It is currently used by only one embassy (Embassy of Georgia, London (Q16891022)) but can I be bold and add it to more? Syced (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Please do! Thryduulf (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Based on a previous discussion, I think the "operator" should more properly reflect the actual government agency that is in charge of the embassy or consulate. For the United States, this would be United States Department of State (Q789915). For the United Kingdom, this would be the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Q358834). —seav (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, label of country (P17) needs to be changed to "country located in". Current label can be misleading. Kwj2772 (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata:WikiProject International relations says the value of country (P17) should be the country that embassies/consulates owned by. Establishing a new standard could make huge confusion. Kwj2772 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that's the first time that project has been identified as existing (and this is at least the third discussion about embassies). In one of the previous discussions it was pointed out that in every other case country (P17) refers to the geographical location of the item, and I've not seen examples of embassies using country (P17) for the owner. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thryduulf: Thanks for the insight! Would you mind editing that policy page to reflect the current established practice? That would allow everyone to talk and agree and then start filling all of the data. Thanks! Syced (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@Syced: I've updated the table on the WikiProject page linked above. Is there anywhere else it should be noted? Thryduulf (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Property for balance, difference, deviation, variance, …

Is there any universal property for a numeric value in terms of

  • balance
  • difference
  • deviation
  • variance
  • shifting
  • …

Sometimes I get crazy finding a suitable and valid property. I mean this is a value usable for ranking, vote results, measured data, etc. Am I really blind or should I start a property request? --Plagiat (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese case

We have two items for Kitty Genovese: Kitty Genovese (Q238128) and murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392).

At first glance, they may look as different things: first one is about person (victim), and second one is about event (murder).

However, it appears that (unlike for example Mozart, who is notable for his music and for his death) Kitty Genovese is notable (for Wikipedia, of course) only for her death (its circumstances and consequences). Thus, de facto, all Wikipedia articles (11 in first item and 7 in second item) are about her death.

You can notice that no language has articles in both items. I.e. 18 languages are split between these two items (11+7) without intersections.

Is there any way to handle this? Or can nothing be done without rewriting all 11 articles in Kitty Genovese (Q238128)?

Sasha1024 (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You could add interwikis locally in the article.
--- Jura 05:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I would definitely move all the wikilinks in one of the items. Usually I would go for the more general item (because even if the articles are mostly talking about her death, I guess they must/might give one or two informations about the victim).--Melderick (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend both, Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items is relevant I think. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Make a local LUA module in Wikipedia to fetch the remaining interlanguage links from the other item. Multichill (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I added all items from murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) to Kitty Genovese (Q238128) by creating or using existing redirect pages (like en:Kitty Genovese). Sadly, I can't do the opposite (add all items from Kitty Genovese (Q238128) to murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) by creating or using existing redirect pages like ru:Убийство Китти Дженовезе), because I don't know how to say "murder of [smbd]" on all these languages. Sasha1024 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood our comments.
--- Jura 04:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Why? IMO I understood everything correctly:
  • Adding interwikis locally (as proposed by Jura) is a no way. There are to many articles (18), adding interwikis in all of them is quite annoying... Especially that this work would need to be redone every time some new translation is created.
  • Merging items (as proposed by Melderick) was actually my original movement (rejected by Jklamo) -- but then I realised that it's wrong way.
  • Thus I did like recommended here (thanks Sjoerd de Bruin for the link).
Do you think I did smth wrong? Sasha1024 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

How about creating a new property for the relationship between Kitty Genovese (Q238128) and murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) and then let the links get created automatically? ChristianKl (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

If I understood you correctly, that's exactly what I was talking about here. But AFAIK such property doesn't exists yet. Sasha1024 (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
statement is subject of (P805)/main subject (P921) (i.e. Kitty Genovese (Q238128)statement is subject of (P805)murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392)/murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392)main subject (P921)Kitty Genovese (Q238128)) or significant event (P793)/participant (P710) (? Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. Does it create interwiki between articles of Kitty Genovese (Q238128) and articles of murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) automatically?
  2. I'm not sure which of these properties do fit better, so it probably will be better if you to create them. Sasha1024 (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  1. no. That can't be done automatically as far as I know.
  2. I'm not sure which is better either, I put them here as suggestions for discussion rather than as a final answer (sorry that wasn't clear). Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I created a property proposal: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/corresponding_Wikipedia_item ChristianKl (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Sasha1024 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Relationship between human leg (Q6027402) and Homo sapiens (Q15978631)

Currently there's no relationship between human leg (Q6027402) and Homo sapiens (Q15978631). Is there an existing property that would be well suited for this purpose? ChristianKl (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

part of (P361) and has part(s) (P527)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
While that might work for this case, it seems to fail for human gait (Q1445211). It seems to me like it would be useful to have a relationship that can be used in both cases. ChristianKl (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Why a single property ? Having a property to link an (a class of) action with the (class of) object who performs it is a good idea. I thought we had a property "agent", but it seems we don't right now, proposal to be created. We also probably have to have to link the action to the result of the action (self-Displacement (Q3044839)      ? motion (Q79782)      ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me like the relationship between human leg (Q6027402) and Homo sapiens (Q15978631)is similar to the relationship between human gait (Q1445211) and at the same time substantially different to the relationship human leg (Q6027402) and human body (Q23852). After thinking a bit more I think it's useful for human leg (Q6027402) to be subclass of human anatomical structure (Q25452965). ChristianKl (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
That sounds like the right way to do it. If you're still looking for something for human gait (Q1445211), you might consider facet of (P1269), of (P642) or relative to (P2210) though the latter two are expected to only be used as qualifiers. Or if there's really a need for something else there I guess another property proposal wouldn't hurt. I am sure there are some gaps in even quite generic wikidata properties still. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
facet of (P1269), of (P642) or relative to (P2210) are essentially gap filling property with no real meaning (by themselves for the two last one). This might even be counter productive to encourage to use them when we just don't have something best to propose as it does not encourage to create a property with a well defined relation and usecases.
For example, as I said, I'd propose a property "self-action of" whose domain is an action or process type involving an organism, and whose range is a type of organisms. The usecase would be this : the organism perform an action, like moving, that involve a change in its state. This would include the digestion process, moves, thinking probably, cleaning yourself, ...
More generically I proposed some properties for processes or type of actions: the performers/processors, the inputs and the results. Don't remember how that ended. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:34, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I went through the existing properties and found found in taxon (P703). It seems to me to work for both the gait and human anatomical structure. It's a bit more specific than `part of`. ChristianKl (talk) 08:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I think it's not suitable fr the gait. It seems just to be a subproperty of "part of", so it will inherit the problems. It does not seem suitable to link an action to the agent of an action. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently it's no subproperty of "part of". But you are right that it doesn't fulfill the criteria of the description. I added a new discussion to the project chat for widening it's scope. ChristianKl (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Widening scope of connects with (P2789)

I want to express the relationship between lower leg (Q8265768) and knee (Q37425). Both are connected with each other. connects with (P2789) seems to be pretty near but currently it's scope is limited to roads. Can I wider the scope and use it for anatomy as well? ChristianKl (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There's an open question about whether both items have to be of the ame time or whether a road can be connected with a cycle route. ChristianKl (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The lower leg and the knee are both valid body parts but one is part of the other. I noticed with cycling routes that "coincident with" is used in such cases, but shouldn't we just use good old "part of"? Jane023 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems you are right with the current definition for lower leg. I think MeSH considers the entries to be distinct so we need a new concept for lower leg proper (Q25652142) that doesn't include the knee. The meaning of the anatomical terms is often non-trival from the description of the labels so I would wish that all the information about what's a part and what connects is included. That way lower leg (Q8265768) should connect to both foot (Q15807) and thigh (Q129757). I think that's information that's can't be described via `part of`. ChristianKl (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Query items with empty label/description in selected language

I am looking for an efficient tool to query items with empty labels and/or descriptions in a selectable language, combined with a WDQ or WDQS query to limit to items of a desired topic. I know that Autolist is theoretically able to deliver such lists, but in practice it always times out when looking for empty labels/descriptions. What else could I do? Thanks in advance, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The Wikidata Terminator could help, but some parts get broken every now and then and it's still based on WDQ. (Magnus, it can use some love; and maybe some indexing on Google) ;) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! WDQ would be fine (for me), but this tool is very limited and apparently it does not query the database. It seems as if there are daily updated lists of items that can be shown, and output is thus always limited to what’s on these lists. Any other suggestions? —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
You can do it all with SPARQL. Examples: Municipalities in Germany without German description, administrative territorial entity of Quebec without French label --Pasleim (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that works fine!   —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: There is also the Nolabels tool, which can select easily the language and show labels in others. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not know that tool. Much simpler and can take (easier to learn) WDQ queries, but also much slower and only works for labels but not descriptions. Still a useful tool! —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Widening scope of found in taxon (P703)

The definition of found in taxon (P703) is currently "the taxon in which the molecule or substance can be found". I would like to use found in taxon (P703) also for anatomical features, diseases, and concepts like human gait (Q1445211) and human supination (Q25657522). Does someone oppose widening the scope like this? ChristianKl (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: Is this the right venue to propose changes in scope of properties? ChristianKl (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The other place to do it is on the discussion page of the property. Widening scope like this is not uncommon; if nobody has a good argument against over a reasonable period of time, go ahead and do it! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Dealing with min and max values of a mass

I want to add the weight to the human brain. Enwiki lists it as 1.3 - to 1.5 kg. Other sources like https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/facts.html list it as 1,300 - 1,400 g. mass (P2067) asks for a single value. How should spans like the above be represented? ChristianKl (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

All quantities come with an uncertainty - you enter the central value and then +- the range, eg. 1350 +- 50 g. You should also add the qualifier uncertainty corresponds to (P2571) if you know the basis for the uncertainty range (eg. standard deviation (Q159375)). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Start time in a video

How do I indicate the starttime (in minutes and seconds)? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I have also already wondered why we can't add time of day to things like date of death (P570) when we know it. But we might need seperate value+quantity properties for start-time and end-time. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
AIUI we cannot add precision of less than a day until changes are made to the back end and UI of Wikidata, so time of day to date properties is not imminent.
We also cannot yet have mixed units, so any start time would need to be in seconds only (but values like 134 seconds are possible) if there is a property. However I cannot find a suitable property and so I suggest you propose one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Where does this sit in the priorities. I ONLY want hour, minutes and seconds. Not days. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): is the person who is most likely to know that. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Why? Is it impossible for a video to be multiple days in length? ChristianKl (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
So I think we have different use-cases here:
  • storing a duration (for a race for example)
  • storing a start time without a date (for a point in time in a video for example)
  • storing a precise point in time (for the start of yesterday's football match for example)
The last one is covered in phabricator:T57755 and one of the issues there is timezones. I am not sure how best to tackle the first two. New datatype? Use the existing datatype? Two new datatypes? What are your opinions? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
My initial gut feeling is a new datatype for "time or duration without date" that could be used for the first two, with the properties determining whether 3 hours 55 minutes 17.14 seconds is a start time or a duration (it should cope with at least year, day, hour, minute and second (with decimals), probably month too); and amending the existing date datatype to include hours, minutes and seconds (with decimals), I guess defaulting to 00:00 or 12:00 if fractions of a day are not specified. Timezone should default to UTC if not specified - maybe that could be done as a qualifier?
Please note though that I am not a programmer and have no conception of how easy, hard or compatible any of this is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Internal references

I spotted this edit, which raises the question: Should a data item on Wikidata be cited on Wikidata as a reference for another data item? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

There should be a item that was being used together with stated in (P248), to indicate that the statements was added to synchronize them. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
It's always good if someone mentions the reason for doing an edit. If someone mades an edit on Wikidata based on information in another Wikidata item they shoudl be free to cite it. ChristianKl (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
But in this case, the cited item has no references at all. It seems rather poor practice to cite yourself as a source of information. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No, citing yourself as a source is not discouraged in academia. In this case the citation tells me that the user who made the edit simply reasoned that a if someone is your father then you are their child. This reasoning process wouldn't be apparent if no source would have been provided. Is the source perfect? No, but it makes the reasoning behind edit more transparent and is therefore useful. In particular this edit is made by a bot. It's good when bots make their decisions transparent. ChristianKl (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: But WD like WP is not a reference. WD has a policy about sources, this is help:sources. Snipre (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
The feature is specifically called "Reference". There's nothing in the document about sources that speaks against putting information of any kind as a reference or that suggest that it's an improvement to provide no reference. ChristianKl (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually there is a discussion of suitable and unsuitable reference types. See the section titled "Different types of sources". --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: In this instance the bot gave the data item as a reference for the self-same same data item. A data item cannot be its own reference; that's not what references are. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
That's factually wrong. The item that's edited is Aeschylus (Q40939). The reference points to Eueon (Q5852832). ChristianKl (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
No, it's factually correct, you just misunderstood. The added information was a link to Eueon (Q5852832), and the reference for that addition is a pointer to Eueon (Q5852832). So the added data is supposed to be its own reference, which is logically untenable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why it's logically untenable to infer that if A is a child of B and the information is contained in A that B is a parent of A with a refernce to B. I would prefer this behavior to automatically copying the sources on which with a bot the claim of A is based, as this way everyone can see the basis of the claim. ChristianKl (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
But in this instance there are no sources to copy. None. So, how does adding a second copy of the same link as a "reference" contribute anything at all? If B claims to be a child of A (without any referecnes for that claim), and B is then linked from A as a child on that basis, why duplicate the link and call it a "reference"? At the minimum it's superfluous, and at worst it's groundless bootstrapping. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There are two separate issues. (1) Should we have bots that add this kind of information. (2) If a bot adds this information, how should the bot account for his actions.
Do you have a problem with both of those issues and think the bot shouldn't have created this statement? ChristianKl (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
the use of wikidata items for sourcing is very useful when using Dictionaries or writings that have a wd item as source.
This is not at all the case. In this case, it should probably have used the source cited in the original spanish wp item - https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve%C3%B3n :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Widening scope of anatomical location (P927)

anatomical location (P927) is currently defined as `where in the body does this anatomical feature lie`. I think it would also be useful to use the property for the relationship between prostate cancer (Q181257) and prostate (Q9625). ChristianKl (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It makes more sense to use the already existing afflicts (P689) Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 18:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Given that the description of afflicts (P689) speaks about the organism that something affects and not the organ or location, I think that definition would also have to be changed to become compatible with the usage for this purpose. The allowed value is taxon.ChristianKl (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible duplicates - Q22511159 and Q2068478

Can anyone take a look at Pembina River (Q22511159)      and Pembina River (Q2068478)      to see if they are duplicates? //Mippzon (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

sv:Pembina_River seems to suggest not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
They look the same to me. The Swedish and Cebuano Wikipedias are full of bot created articles and disambiguation pages which haven't been checked by humans. The bot uses GeoNames data. In this case, it seems that it claims there are two rivers because GeoNames has two IDs, one with the country set to Canada and the "mouth" at the border to the USA, another with the country set to the USA and the mouth at the point where the river actually flows into another river. - Nikki (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into those two! I tried myself, but could not see unique things for one or the other at first glimpse. //Mippzon (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mippzon: et al. This is a common problem with the Lsjbot-articles. I normally merge them and add two (or more) P1566 to the item. My lack of knowledge of Cebuano, often makes it impossible to merge the articles/items. If somebody insists in having two (or more) articles/items about the same river, I have no strong opinions against it. The records of SMHI (the Swedish authority in this subject) often tends to split watercourses in many small parts, once for every time it crosses a lake. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia article

台湾地位未定論

's English interwiki link is incorrectly linking to a redirect page called Legal status of Taiwan. It is supposed to link to Theory of the indeterminate status of Taiwan. I had tried every solution I know and read the instruction in Wikipedia:Wikidata#Incorrect_interwiki_links, and there doesn't seem to be anything else I could do.

This is the Wikidata page of Theory of the indeterminate status of Taiwan: Q6129171. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The end of the Japanese Wikipedia article had to specify the interwiki link. I removed it and now it should use Wikidata for the link. ChristianKl (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I see. Thank you very much. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Funny interwiki fail

lurker (Q432335) links on CD-ROM in Cantonese. Is this correct?--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Linked by @Aristitleism:, article edited by @Poshi, Ultratomio, SC96:, let's wait for comments from them. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
CD-ROM (網絡用語) describes the "internet term" with the same meaning as "Lurker", not the compact disc (CD-ROM (Q7982)).SC96 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@SC96: citation needed (Q3544030)--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Merged teams

Hello. EPA Larnaca FC (Q2317850) and Pezoporikos Larnaca FC (Q2277220) merged to form AEK Larnaca F.C. (Q291447).

1) How can I show in AEK Larnaca F.C. (Q291447) that is the result of the merging of the others two clubs? Which property to use?

2) How can I show in EPA Larnaca FC (Q2317850) that it was merged with Pezoporikos Larnaca FC (Q2277220) merged to form AEK Larnaca F.C. (Q291447)?

Xaris333 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Xaris333, I could only find follows (P155). Probably not the best solution, but until someone comes with a better idea... you may want to consider this solution. --FocalPoint (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

How I'd do it would probably be:
. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
End date is definitely not appropriate. It's a qualifier and we have more appropriate properties for this. I don't like the [end date>[endcause:merged][with:whatever]" construction either as it's definitely something we don't document anywhere, is ill specified (if at all) and it's a bad thing. Plus the "with" is paired with another qualifier, and not to the main statement : it's a sign that it's not well modelled, the qualifier should be paired with the main snak of the statement. Overwise the pair should be a statement by itself. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

TomT0m please check EPA Larnaca FC (Q2317850). See dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) and tell me if is ok. Xaris333 (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

In a timeline item ( Q186117 )

For an item that is a timeline, i.e. it is an instance of timeline (Q186117), what properties should be used to indicate the involved people, topic, etc. of the timeline? I'm asking in regards to timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin (Q7806459). --Senator2029 (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess that significant event (P793) can be used. Pamputt (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Don't scatter the information: instaed of creating a different item for the timeline, use the item of the event to save data. We have shooting of Trayvon Martin (Q913747) for the event so all information should be there. Use significant event (P793) to store the data and later the timeline can be built from the diveses statements using significant event (P793). Snipre (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
A different item for the timeline is needed because of the enwiki article en:Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, besided the articles en:Shooting of Trayvon Martin and en:Trayvon Martin. --Pasleim (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Better to retrieve the data about the shooting in the timeline article. In lua you just have to load the Trayvon Martin datas with arbitrary access. The datas of the timeline item should be really minimal. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The timeline item should at least be linked to the main item with main subject (P921). I think start time (P580) and end time (P582) statements for the times of the first and last entries would also be useful (even more so when we get greater precision than 1 day - see also #Start time in a video above) so that multiple timelines can be ordered chronologically (and maybe a meta timeline created). Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Some javascript help

Maybe somebody could help out a JS newbie? I have a simple script, where I go trough API query results (labels) in specific order (var langs). On first found label I end job. If I add some language at langs as 1st element, that is not from API query result list ('es', for example), I get TypeError: data.entities.Q36107.labels[langs[i]] is undefined. Besides 'undefined', tried also typeof, but without luck. Admins can go and add code to script directly, I don't mind. Yes, I know, that code is pretty dirty... --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The error message actually told you what you were doing wrong. Removing .value from the check should make it work. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, yes, didn't notice, that TyperError message hadn't .value. Thanks, now it works as expected. I knew, I can go to your talkpage, as you will answer, no need for spamming Project chat page :D --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference drag'n'drop user script to gadget

At the bequest of Lydia, I would like to have my script for reference darg'n'drop between statements, and from Wikipedia references to Wikidata statements, "upgraded" to a proper gadget. I am posting here, as I couldn't find an "official" page to suggest new gadgets.

This script has been around a while, and I patched it up to work with the latest UI changes. I made some how-to videos as well:

--Magnus Manske (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Magnus, I added the gadget and it seems to work for me. The parts:

Can you check my changes? I'm not sure if I did the ResourceLoader part correctly. Please test the gadget! Multichill (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Multichill! Appears to work fine. I guess gadgets are loaded last, so indeed no use for the "paranoia code" :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat off-topic, but I think we should probably have a proper procedure for proposing gadgets. I started a thread for adding DiffLists.js as a gadget about a month ago at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition, but didn't get much response. --Yair rand (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

How to move data from Statements section to Identifiers section?

I have added in several Philippine province articles their respective Philippine Standard Geographic Codes (P988), but have placed the info under Statements section instead of Identifiers. It would be tedious to manually reenter the info under the Identifiers section then delete the info from Statements. Is there an easier way to move the data to the Identifiers section, and more importantly, is there any difference between having the data under Statements instead of Identifiers? Thanks. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The section depends on the data type of the property. If it's an extenal id (which Philippine Standard Geographic Code (P988) is), it's automatically placed into the "Identifiers" section. If you put into the above section, just refresh the page. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I never noticed that until you told me. Thank you very much for the info. Sanglahi86 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Please advise I have seen a handful of other Statements that should definitely be Identifiers: like names in databases. Where should I propose changing these? Here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: Double-check procedure (and previous decisions) at Wikidata:Identifier migration. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Merging with history

During “merging with history” that I did in Tamil Wikipedia, link for Wikidata was removed. Therefore, I undo the edit. Eg: gun (Q1194773). I have notice such issue recently, not sometimes ago, and it was not necessary to check or undo. Can anyone help on this? --AntanO 03:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Four days.. no one! Is there anyone who could comment on this? Did I place the request on wrong page? --AntanO 03:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@AntanO: This is the correct page. I am not sure what the problem is: w:ta:துப்பாக்கி and d:Q1194773 link to one another. Is that what should happen? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the link is correct. When I did "history merge", the link was deleted (see the different). When I did (about 3 months?) the same merge for other pages, it was not deleted. --AntanO 03:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Please for now just add the link by hand. Merging of articles with history is something we can not deal with well at this point. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Verifiability and living people

The current RfC would make massive changes to the way Wikidata operates (for all content, not just living people)

Very few people have commented. I urge everyone to read the proposals, and to make their views known, as I have just done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC).

This is a poorly elaborated RfC. I looked at it a couple of days ago and did not know how to vote there. Now I added oppose votes at the most dangerous points… Thanks for noting. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Jasper initially proposed drafting this a month ago here on Project Chat and got very little response. Getting this right is important, and there are serious issues at stake; it would be helpful to have some constructive comments on how to improve verifiability and particularly support the WMF policy on living persons rather than the flurry of "oppose" votes that seem to have just occurred. If you don't like this proposal, please comment in the discussion areas on how to do it right. We need to do better on this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
As I already said there: "Better to draft guidelines, taking advantages of the fact that this is a wiki, then hold an RfC on whether to adopt them as policy.". An RfC (despite the name) - something which starts with a voting process - is more suited to binary decisions than consensual and progressive drafting of new procedures or policies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
what a particularly ill-advised proposal. what would you expect but a flurry of opposes? we do need to do better. where is the leadership to fix the problem, rather than adversively mass delete? increasing the scrap rate does not increase quality. Arcituno (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
There have been many ideas on improving quality. It just does not have priority. The easiest thing to start with is by comparing external sources and identify differences. These are the items that do want attention. It will also make more difference finding sources for them than "requiring" sources on everything. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that having a `citation needed` feature would be a step in the right direction. I added an issue on Phabricator. ChristianKl (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you explain how that will help? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone tags edits I made with "Citation needed", Wikidata could alert me of that event. This provides me an opportunity to fix the issue and add a citation. If a statement is for a longer time with a "Citation needed" tag but no one adds a source it's easier to justify deleting the unsourced statement than it's presently. The exact way the future would be used could evolve with time. ChristianKl (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
if statements tagged with "citation needed" could be searched, or made apparent with (for example) a coloured background, it would be easier to find them and try to complete them… --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
An ability to explain why something is being removed would be good too - if I see someone, particularly a new user. removing a statement that seems plausible from an item then I'm far more likely to let the removal stand (or re-add it with a source) rather than undoing it if there is a reason provided. This could be programmed in to the citation needed feature I suppose. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
if you had a tag you could do a "1lib1ref" reference drive, or gamify referencing statements, but merely tagging with no process is not a solution. and threatening mass deleting (i.e. BLP drama) is an english wikipedia method of management, that is proven not to work. it soon becomes "cut off your nose to spite your face", editors leave in droves. Arcituno (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate what I already said on the RfC talk page: if it was ill-advised, then it was because I received no guidance when I solicited it here a month or two ago. I do not think it is fair for me to take blame for any problems with the RfC.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if I read what you posted a month or two ago, but I would have said then pretty much what I said on the RfC page - Wikidata is just not ready to have such a discussion because adding references is still too difficult. We are taking the proper steps in the right direction, but everyone needs to be patient. Also, when the project finishes to get all external id's properly identified, it will show that many items have at least one external id and this is a valid reference for the item which itself needs no reference. Same for images and a few other properties. I agree with Andy's statement above about the method - first the policy should be drafted and that has not been done. Jumping into an RfC is just silly and a waste of everyone's time here. It also strikes me as being enwiki-centric. Jane023 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a draft policy -- Wikidata:Verifiability - but it needs work. Maybe a lot of work. It probably needs to be merged/split better with Help:Sources. There are many translations of these already so some care is needed in editing. But I suggest those who would like to have a better policy for wikidata on verifiability should help to clarify it by editing those pages. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023, Pigsonthewing: I forgot there is also Wikidata:Living people which is a proposed policy that includes a "Information added to Wikidata about living people must meet the following criteria: ..." statement. Claiming that no policy has been drafted is just wrong - we have several proposed policies. They can be edited if they need improvement. If they are truly unrealistic then let's discuss that, but wikidata is not an infant any more, it is now in its 4th year of existence. We have a lot of data already. Some of it is well-referenced, some is not. How do we keep improving on this? And by the way, I believe all the external identifier work has been completed now? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
I just checked and catalog code (P528) which only accepts a Q number as object, is still not considered an external id. This is just an example. Same for image (P18), Commons category (P373) and other Commons-based properties which only accept Commons targets. The RfC should reference the policies so people can work on them. Now you can only vote. It is way too soon for voting if the policies are not written and findable. Jane023 (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023: It's called a request for comment not a request for votes, for a reason. At no time did I expect everyone to agree with it whole heartedly. It's also why I left discussion sections on the page too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In my experience it is best to vote on these things because the votes get counted in all the summaries. It's just a waste of time to bundle it all up into a multi-vote thing where people get bored scrolling down looking for the next voting section. Jane023 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023: catalog code (P528) and Commons category (P373) are not going to be converted to external identifiers - they are in the "not to be converted" list, with explanations on Wikidata:Identifier_migration/0. image (P18) is not a string property and not eligible to be an external id (not even sure what you're suggesting on that one). As for the RfC referencing the policies, it certainly linked to them and included suggested changes at least for Wikidata:Verifiability, though perhaps it was a little obscure about their status and need for improvement. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
As long as you don't make it mandatory that those properties have references, then I don't care. My point is that they are self-referencing. Jane023 (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you point to specific examples on Wikidata, that you think should be removed where the current practice isn't to remove the content? With examples of what shouldn't exist it might be easier to write policy. ChristianKl (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Here is Last month's discussion to which you refer; and here is where, on 27 June, you were asked "Please freeze the vote sections and allow some discussion about the subjects and the formulation of the questions. We first need to be sure that the questions cover correctly the mentioned problems..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy;Andy's edits 12:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If the issue you want to solve is providing Wikipedia like the enwiki a way to trust the data they import from Wikidata, it would be possible to set a flag that enwiki can only access properties that are sourced. If a "citaton needed" feature is implemented, it would also be possible to present information that's tagged that way in Wikidata from being displayed in enwiki. We could also have multiple classes of evidence, so that a Wiki could decide that interwiki references aren't enough. ChristianKl (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #217

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Dutch nationality

A lot of items contain country of citizenship (P27)Netherlands (Q55) as the nationality of the described persons, but I think they should be corrected to country of citizenship (P27)Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999). "Netherlands" isn't the nationality of them, see en:Dutch nationality law. Am I right and, if it is correct, how many items should be corrected (after what birth date for example)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering this as well. Actually, If so, I doubt if the translation of nationality is correct ('land van nationaliteit'), a nation is a sovereign state but it is translated as 'land', while a sovereign state can consists of several countries. --Hannolans (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. See the property talk page and previous discussions on project chat (I linked to some in Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/06#citizenship). --HHill (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, but can anyone help me with this specific situation? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Properties for broadcast stations

In trying to improve the Atlantic 252 (Q370784) item I can't figure out if we have current properties for the following or not:

  • Transmission power
  • Format (e.g. pop music / classical music / news and sports / etc)

For the second we have genre (P136) but I think that would require broadening to fit this usage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Use radio format (P415), not genre (P136) for radio station formats. Danrok (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added a couple of aliases to that property to make it easier to find. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Main subject (P921) for Orlando nightclub shooting

Danrok has added] the claim

. That feels to me like the wrong property to use to convey what I think is the intended meaning (that this event is part of the campaign by Islamic State (Q2429253)) but (a) I'm not sure, and (b) if so how should this be expressed? Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: The claim was was added as a batch because the Wikinews article is filed under Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I've removed it for now. This issue exists because some news articles share the same wikidata item as other types of item. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is. IMO wikinews integration was not thought out and planned so well. Danrok (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: You are adding inappropriate data to a number of items. For example, I have already removed from 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash (Q20857716) the bizarre value for main subject (P921) of association football (Q2736); I now find you have added instead David Cameron (Q192). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: The claims are only "bizarre" when viewed from a Wikipedia point of view, not so bizarre if you read the linked news article. The real source of the problem is that some wikinews articles share the same item as wikipedia articles. Danrok (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: Your explanation sounds like you are adding data via a bot but you don't use the bot flag. It also seems like automatically creating "main subject" from Wikinews categories doesn't make sense given how Wikinews categories are used. ChristianKl (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: No, none of my edits are made using a bot, so no bot flag is needed. What is it about Wikinews categories that makes no sense to you? Danrok (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The question isn't whether the categories make sense but whether the correspond to "main subject". I don't think they do as examples like the above show. ChristianKl (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Well, they do from a news point of view, which is why they have been categorised as such on Wikinews. For example, on Wikinews, the Shoreham crash was filed under football because 2 of those people killed were on their way to a football match. This would make sense to a news editor. Danrok (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: There's a difference between "main category subject" and a passing mention. How do you propose to address this, in your future edits? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: This happens all the time. Items are edited based on categorisation in different projects. It accidently made me adding "instance of:island" to almost anything distant related to UK, like weapons used in WW2. This because UK participated in WW2 and UK is located on a group of islands. As long as we learn from such mistakes, it is not a big issue. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, errors are inevitable and there are simply far too many items for us to be going through them one-by-one by hand. Fortunately, we do have tools and reports for finding and fixing possible mistakes. Danrok (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
My question asks Danrok how he will implement what he has learned from this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You are going to have a very long wait. This will be the last time I converse (waste time) with you. Danrok (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: You are being argumentative about something which is completely subjective. Your own belief is neither right or wrong. The scope of a news article may differ from the scope of a wikipedia article, same applies to news on the same subject written in a different language. Then we need to consider that the person searching for information on a given subject may well be searching for that "passing mention". What is pertinent to one person, may be of no interest to another. So, one possibility is that we could have a new property for "other subjects" covered by a creative work such as a news article. Perhaps, we need a few new properties to help with Wikinews and similar items. Bear in mind here that I am simply being bold enough to have a go at making some claims for Wikinews which is looking very neglected. PS. My edits are not the issue (669,288 made of which 665,823 are still alive) Danrok (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
No, Danrok, I'm not "being argumentative about something which is completely subjective" . There is no sensible argument whatsoever that "association football" is the main subject of the Shoreham Aircrash; it's not even the main subject of a Wikinews article about the aircrash, in any language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
You really are quite something! Nothing subjective about the word subject? Duh! Danrok (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to refute my argument with some evidence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
That air crash is filed under the football topic on the Guardian's news site: Shoreham airshow crash at the foot of the page. But, what would they know, eh? Danrok (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
What would the Guardian know? Precious little about Wikidata and Wikinews. (And that is a tag, not the main topic.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) People may well be searching for passing mentions but main subject (P921) is absolutely the wrong property to use for such. It also seems clear that categories on Wikinews articles do not correspond reliably to the topic of the Wikidata item they have been associated with, so any importation must only be done with individual subjective human oversight. Having incorrect statements is worse than having no statements.
It would be different if each wikinews article had it's own item (i.e. the only instance of (P31) statement is Wikinews article (Q17633526) or a subclass of it) which has properties for main subject (P921), "secondary subject" and "passing mention". Wikdata items that are not instances of Wikinews articles could then link to those articles with a "subject of" or "mentioned in" property that took the wikinews article item as the claim value. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: has it occurred to you that the Wikidata item and Guardian news articles may have different focuses? Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: This news, both on Wikinews and other news sites is categorised under football because 2 of the people killed were Worthing United footballers. This seems to be how things are done in the news world. This is not something I am simply making-up based on my on ideas. The claim was, in any case, reversed by Pigsonthewing yesterday. Why it is still an issue, I don't know. Danrok (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: You said, "It would be different if each wikinews article had it's own item". The vast majority are not linked to Wikipedia articles. So, these have been claimed, instance of (P31) = Wikinews article (Q17633526), not by me, and I suspect arbitrarily. Those which are linked to Wikipedia items do not have that claim. Clearly, this is an all or nothing situation, we can't claim instance of (P31) = Wikinews article (Q17633526) for some, and not others. The way it is, the situation is conflicting. Danrok (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue is not the single instance, but the ongoing matter of which that is but one example - another two examples have also been given in this section. In fact, I've just checked the last few of your edits in this series, and they;re all inappropriate; for example tagging Fossilized remains of small dinosaur rediscovered in Canada (Q18017785) as having a main subject of "biology" and not "paleantology" (or something even more specific) plus "Canada". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: The Guardian and Wikinews are both producing news articles that are tagged with subjects that are mentioned in those articles, but Wikidata is not a news article and we do not use tags. The Worthing United footballers killed in the air crash would be linked from the item about the air crash (note: this is not an item about the news articles, but about the event) using participant (P710). On each of their items would be the claims member of sports team (P54) Worthing United F.C. (Q8037232) and cause of death (P509) 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash (Q20857716). The air crash is not itself related to football and it is not a work that can have a main subject. Until you understand this you will not understand why people are not happy with your edits and you really should not be making them until you do understand and can explain how you will avoid the problems going forward. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I have not made any main subject (P921) claims since this discussion started. The existing main subject (P921) claims are no big deal, most of them are valid claims, if not as specific as they could be. I can easily undo my changes if needed, that is trivial enough. What really needs to be resolved is what claims if any should be made regarding Wikinews items. Should main subject (P921) be used at all? Danrok (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Part of this mess is simply due to use of instance of (P31) Wikinews article (Q17633526). The shooting was not a Wikinews article. Wikinews articles are about events, much like some Wikipedia articles are. The topic of the items should be the articles' topics, not the articles themselves. I strongly support eliminating use of Wikinews article (Q17633526). No items linked to Wikinews articles should have main subject (P921), language of work or name (P407), author (P50) or any similar properties, any more than an item linked to Wikipedia articles would have author (P50) listing every Wikipedia editor involved in the article.
  • Part of this is misuse of main subject (P921) for incidental associated topics. Tags and categories are not a good source for these. Even if we were to treat Wikinews articles themselves as the topics of their linked items, "main subject" doesn't refer to passing mentions.
  • Bot owners are completely responsible for their bot's actions. Edits must be checked manually where necessary. If significant errors are inevitable, the bot run shouldn't happen. If a bot is not holding by this, their edits should be mass-reverted and the editor given appropriate warning. In general, bot runs should get community approval in advance, especially if there's likely to be any point of controversy. --Yair rand (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I would tend to agree that we should not be claiming instance of (P31) = Wikinews article (Q17633526), although elsewhere we are making claims such as instance of (P31) = Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) which contradicts that thinking to some extent. Not using language of work or name (P407) makes complete sense, because it is superfluous, the language is already there in the interwiki links. Danrok (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Yair rand, Danrok: et al. Also I agree that instance of (P31):Wikinews article (Q17633526) is a dead end. But linking them directly to the Wikipedia-items is probably not a good idea, since there can be more than one News-articles to one Wikipedia-article. The same problem can be found in Wikisource. There we have agreed to use P31:version, edition or translation (Q3331189) and let every Wikisource-article stand alone in each item. That has been implemented very poorly, since most users out there tends to see Wikidata mainly as a repository for Interwiki and not for Structured data. Using P31:Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) is probably right, since this set of items is a dead end in itself. My opinions is that these items do not really fit into Wikidata at all, since they cannot have much of "structured data".
I would suggest that you treat the Wikinews-items as other newspaper-articles are treated here, when we use such articles as sources for ordinary Wikipedia-items. On Wikisource we have categories for each Author, and when the community itself is Author, we use "Wikisource-translation" as an Author-category. This even in the cases when the Wikieditor is only one person and that person can be identified with a IRL-person who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Maybe you could do the same thing at Wikinews, having P50:"Wikinews community" as a statement in such items, if having it at all. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There can be more than one Wikinews article to one Wikipedia article, and there can also be more than one Wikipedia article on one Wikipedia to one article on another Wikipedia, or multiple articles on Wikipedia to one article on Wikinews. This doesn't mean that we need to handle Wikinews differently. If the topic covered by a Wikinews article is not the same as that covered by the Wikipedia article (including sharing scope, one-to-one correspondence, as we would require of Wikipedia article links) then the articles should not be linked.
To the best of my knowledge, all Wikinews articles are written by the Wikinews community, much like all Wikipedia articles are written by the Wikipedia community. Adding 200,000 statements indicating authorship of all Wikinews articles serves no more purpose than doing the equivalent for Wikipedia would. I strongly disagree with treating items linked to Wikinews articles as being about newspaper articles instead of the actual topics, as proposed. --Yair rand (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I think "main topic" can be added to many news articles/books/papers/reports/films too.
Regarding the many Wikipedia-articles about the same subject, I hope there will be a solution for such projects as ladwiki, hywiki and nwiki sooner or later. My suggestion on WD:DEV some time ago was that the articles on ladwiki with a Hebrew script should be treated as a "virtual" wiki. Virtually dividing such wikis in partitions who can have sitelink-codes of their own here at Wikidata and in that way allow several sitelinks to on one wiki in the same "physical" project. That would probably work also for Incubator, Oldwikisource and Betwikiversity, but I guess that is not a solution for Wikisource and Wikinews.
Having multiple articles in other wikis like svwiki, is a maintenance problem, and should be treated as such. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Property:P1442

When I go to add this field to a record it just spins and never forms a box, can someone check it to see if there is something wrong. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just added it succesfully on Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189). Edoderoo (talk)
I get this occasionally with all sorts of properties - reloading the page usually sorts it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I found a work around. When it is still spinning I hit "no value" and it locks in the box. I toggle it to "custom value" and then I can fill the field. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I usually add "image of grave" and then it start to "spinning". I then tap the "<--"-button until it writes "image of gra.." instead. The browser then suggests "image of grave", I confirms that, and I can edit again. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It's just a weird bug that occurs when you want to work too fast, the process that detects the input field that goes with the property crashes somehow. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Constraints for sources

When can we get constrains for sources, like the requirement of at least one (specific) source? I've encountered mass-addings of controversial ethnic group (P172) claims and there is no easy way to track those down. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I added a complex constraint to P172. But I think this property is hopeless. It is clearly states in descriptions and on the talk page that it needs a source but users just ignore it. At the moment, 28 claims have a stated in (P248) reference, 7976 claims have a imported from Wikimedia project (P143) reference, and 17,823 not a single reference. --Pasleim (talk) 08:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think some sort of developer action is needed to allow certain properties to be tagged as absolutely requiring a reference, such that they cannot be saved without one. It may be possible to do it with edit filters, but from a previous discussion I have recollection that it would be tricky/suboptimal at best. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We need relevant property suggestions for sources (but also qualifiers) that appear before saving then, now they are useless. Otherwise people will not know how to add a source. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think so. If the developers don't implement soon these kinds of constraints as suggestions, and make mandatory constraints really mandatory, data of Wikidata will continue degrading and the efforts needed to fix everything in a few months will be unaffordable. --abián 10:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm very wary of simply forcing people to add references. Doing that without addressing the reasons why people aren't adding references it will just create different problems such as poor quality, incorrect or completely nonsensical references. We can easily detect unreferenced statements, detecting incorrect ones is much more difficult. Also: I almost always add references as a second step because the property suggestions are broken when adding qualifiers/references at the same time as adding a statement and because I often use the copy reference gadget to re-use an existing reference. - Nikki (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the correct way would be to have a bot that alerts people on their talk page that this statement needs a reference?
I also don't think having this kind of requirement on the talk page is the way to go. A person who won't understand English likely won't understand the requirement. This seems to be a case for Wikidata usage instructions (P2559). ChristianKl (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that the actual examples of the property don't have references. 2 don't have any references at all and the other three have "imported from the English Wikipedia. ChristianKl (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Auto add labels for a human when we know its family and given names

A bot can do that, please comment on Wikidata:Bot_requests#labels_from_name_properties so that we have more input on this. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Four items for Laughing Dove

How should we resolve:

-- ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs).

An „opaque“ question. Could you explain what's unlear to you? --Succu (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The red list entry gives a lot taxonomic opions (see synonyms) about the „Laughing Dove“ but is missing the original combination as Columba senegalensis (Q24054432). --Succu (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me like the problem is taxon synonym (P1420) which doesn't really make sense because synonmous terms usually don't get two terms in Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

So what do you think: why exists this property at all, ChristianKl? --Succu (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Because it seems some people think that a Wikidata entry should represent a name and others think it should represent the thing the name represents. I did leave a not on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology/Modelling about the issue. ChristianKl (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
ChristianKl, I coudn't find an entry at Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology/Modelling... --Succu (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
See the section at the end titled "Concepts and their names". If you think this issue should be raised differently I'm also happy. ChristianKl (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, ChristianKl. At least I found your unsigned edit. But how to comment it? --Succu (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference items for ProveIt

Hi there! ProveIt is a Wikipedia gadget that scans the wikitext of any article you're editing and shows a friendly interface to create, update and delete references. Some weeks ago I got a grant to enhance the gadget and perhaps the coolest feature I want to add involves connecting it with Wikidata so that new references inserted with the gadget are saved as items here, so that the next time a user wants to reference the same work, the gadget autocompletes the fields. This way the data only needs to be entered once, and future users will only reuse, correct and extend existing data.

This functionality can also be accomplished by connecting the gadget with a custom database at Tool Labs, but connecting it with Wikidata would probably be much better, because of the multilingual support, the already available data, the powerful API, etc. However, in order for this to happen, I need community consensus first. Connecting the gadget to Wikidata would bring lots of new data to Wikidata, useful not only for ProveIt but also for any other reference manager out there, for example the one at the VisualEditor. However, it would also create lots of not-so-notable items, as the gadget would create an item whenever a not-so-notable work is referenced. According to the notability guidelines, non-notable items may be acceptable if they fulfill some structural need. Would this qualify as a structural need? In case it doesn't, I can think of three solutions to this issue:

  • Allow the gadget to only read existing data from Wikidata, and not allow it to create new data. This would obviously cripple the functionality, but maybe not so much, because we can expect that notable works with items at Wikidata will be the most referenced, while less notable works will be less referenced. A link could be provided to the retrieved item at Wikidata in case the user wants to modify the data for future users.
  • Make the gadget add all items created by it to a special maintenance category, and have volunteers periodically clean the category of non-notable items. This approach has the disadvantage of requiring volunteer work, but it has the advantage of allowing the creation of new content, which would surely be welcome in many cases, even most.
  • Change the rules, and allow non-notable items when they are reference items used by ProveIt and other reference managers.

These are the problems and solutions I can think of, but surely you may see others. My grant is for a six-month project that ends on December. I plan to integrate the gadget with Wikidata (or Tool Labs, in case we don't achieve consensus) during October and November, so we have plenty of time to discuss the implementation. Looking forward to your replies, cheers! --Felipe (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support creating the sources as Wikidata items. I think valid sources are per definition notable via: "(3) It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful". We should focus on making sourcing easier. We shouldn't try to focus on limiting the amount of data in Wikidata.
If there a need to keep a certain class of items under the watch of more eyes, we could create a multi-tiered system that gives every item a notability score and allows users to choose to disregard items with a notability score under a freely chosen threshold. ChristianKl (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Would you be using the items in references in Wikidata, or only in Wikipedia? If you would be adding them as references on statements in Wikidata, have a look at Help:Sources, that might clarify things a bit (basically, anything that's not a webpage needs an item if you want to use it in a reference and those items are therefore notable by criteria 3). If you're only planning to use it in Wikipedia, it might count as notable but it would be rather problematic right now because we can't see that an item is in use, so the items would be at risk of being deleted. - Nikki (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Can wikidata link to wikis in incubator? If not, can the feature be developed?

Also, how about the multilingual wikisource? C933103 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@C933103: See Wikidata:Incubator and Wikidata:Wikisource. The short answer is not yet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T54971
--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Settlement and end date?

Does a "human settlement" ever end to be a settlement? I was editing Messaure (Q15999235), when I asked myself this question. Personally, I have no problem with naming The stoneage settlement in Bjästamon (Q19803444) which was abandoned 4000 years ago for a human settlement, but it is probably better to name that an archaeological site. In the case of Messaure, it had a population of 1,260 as of 1960. When the construction work around a electric power station was finished, not only the people left the village. Also the houses were removed in the late 1970's early 1980's and today only the roads can be found. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Data formatting in infobox

Hi,

There seems to be a small problem displaying information from Wikidata in a Wikipedia article. Q1962613 lists two universities in the "Alma mater" section, which distorts the template in uk:Йонас Басанавічюс as by default the two names are not separated by a break. The infobox just retrieves the corresponding element from Wikidata with no own syntax. How can this be fixed? --TheStrayCat (talk) 07:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

In uk:Шаблон:Особа, change {{Вікідані|P69}} to {{Вікідані|P69|3=<br />}}. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems to work fine. Thanks a lot! --TheStrayCat (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Split Quantity data type into Real and Integer data types

It's currently possible to write a real number as a value for a property which should only have integers (for example, population (P1082)). The lack of a constraint for this (because {{Constraint:Format}} is not available for numbers) generates multiple risky mistakes. Would it be a good idea to split the Quantity data type into two new data types, Real and Integer? --abián 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a suggestion at phab:T112247 for creating a new type for integers. However the main problem here seems to be that there are multiple ways to write numbers (some languages use a comma for separating thousands and a dot for the decimal point while other languages do it the other way round) and some people are accidentally entering numbers in the opposite format to what the website expects. Improving that would be a good idea regardless of whether an integer type is created. - Nikki (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I think I actually have seen non-integer population numbers in French commune-census data. Those numbers were estimates and not exact numbers. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be possible in the meantime to have a bot to fix these bad numbers. Should be careful though and keep in mind that 12.34 probably means 12340 not 1234. Laboramus (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That hopefully shouldn't be a problem because the data itself has the trailing zeros (they're also shown on the item page, see here for example), it's the query service which is ignoring them. I only see 83 results in the query though, it's probably not worth getting a bot to do it. - Nikki (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking multiple version of same article in same Wikipedia

In some wikipedia like cdo.wikipedia.org and hak.wikipedia.org, where these languages can be written in multiple scripts and an automatic script converter is not implemented for various reasons, multiple article on exactly same subject can coexist because they are written in different scripts.

But under the current wikidata system, each wikidata entry can only have one article linked to the entry, this mean only one script version of article on that wikipedia can be linked in wikidata, which mean the other script version of the article on those wikipedia can only resort to workarounds like manual language links. The situation also caused creation of duplicated wikidata item which have identical meaning to other existing wikidata item, like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22827636


Can the wikidata systen be improved in the future to support multiple link in same Wikipedia to solve the problem created by this?

C933103 (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what we were discussing in Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#One_site_link_per_item_limitation. :) Even if the development team agree to change it, it will take a while before it can be changed. For now, we have permanent duplicated item (P2959) (created a few days ago) for linking the duplicate items. Some wikis use a module to fetch interwiki links via those statements, but I don't have time right now to find an example. - Nikki (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Unicity of P577 (date of publication)

According to its page, date of publication is “[The] date or point in time a work is first published or released”, but e.g. Q1023813 has three of them. Is it normal, and if so, is there another property that associate a single date with a work ? Evpok (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Evpok: There might be several publication of a work. The good practice is to create one item per publication (typically in a citation the page if provided is related to the edition, not to the work) and to the main item of the work and the editions with has edition or translation (P747)   and edition or translation of (P629)  . Just guessing, in your case it's probably that the editions are mixed up in the work item. Usually you are right, there should be only one date. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Importing coordinates from guwiki -> wikidata

As this was discussed in the past (April 2016: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/04#Upcoming_coordinate_import), guwiki has 18,000+ coordinates of villages (mostly Gujarat state). Please import them. Many of them are checked by community and corrected and work is slow but we're fixing coordinates in guwiki. Thanks. --KartikMistry (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have the data ready and can import them, I'd just like an "official go-ahead" before I'm blamed for importing wrong coordinates ;-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@KartikMistry: How do you know which coords are right and which are wrong? --Izno (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
If there is still substantial work to be done, it is not really nice to keep them in two different places. Maybe gu.wikpedia should pull coordinates from Wikidata, so that they can be removed from gu.wikipedia once they have been imported to Wikidata ? --Zolo (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

P39 usage

Hi, I have to work in itwiki with some items using position held (P39). These items are human spaceflights, and P39 has been used for describing the astronaut role during the spaceflight: example, example2, example3, example4, and so on.

Reading the p:P39 documentation this usage seems wrong to me, because p:P39 represents a mandate in politics, and "Mission specialist" (Q20116202) or "Flight Engineer" (Q20443756) aren't mandates in politics. Could someone confirm and suggest the correct property for specifing the role of a astronaut in a human spaceflight? --Rotpunkt (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

For professions, we have occupation (P106).--Melderick (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Rotpunkt, Melderick: My understanding of position held (P39) is that it refers to a specific job title. So position held (P39) + Mission Specialist 1 (Q20116202) would not be appropriate. I don't think there's an existing property that covers that use - maybe we should broaden position played on team / speciality (P413) to allow for non-sport uses. (Or you can say spaceflight is a sport!) Deryck Chan (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi thanks, by now occupation (P106) seems the best choice. I will wait a few more days for other ideas and then I think I will ask for the property replacement (P106 instead of P39) for those spaceflight items. --Rotpunkt (talk) 17:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, there is also subject has role (P2868) and P794 (P794), just to add to the confusion. ;) Danrok (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion, subject has role (P2868) would be a better option. --Adert (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Remind me again ...

What is the policy when a Wikipedia article is deleted and that is the only connection to a wiki project? Do we delete or retain the Wikidata entry? If I remember correctly, to have a Wikidata entry you must have a connection to at least one wiki project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You should read Wikidata:Notability. Talking about notability, I see you created William Oldrin, Sr. (Q20659219) and his family members. How are these notable? I'm not sure if Wikidata is the right place to build your personal family tree. Multichill (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
If I wanted to build a family tree I would do it at a genealogy website. What you are pointing to is a list of people with Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons entries where I know my relationship to them. Anyone who can trace back 10 to 15 generations in Europe can show how they are related to everyone else that can trace back 10 to 15 generations in Europe. That is just how genetics and mathematics work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It refers to a material entity and uses public information from http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=71142537 . That fulfills criteria 2. ChristianKl (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I reread Wikidata:Notability it makes no mention of the question I asked, am I missing something? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Did Wikidata:Notability said that "you must have a connection to at least one wiki project"? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Innocent bystander: I am not sure what your question means. Let me rephrase mine for clarity: If Wikidata contains just one link to a wiki project, and that wiki project page is deleted, should we automatically delete the Wikidata entry? I am getting the feeling from the comments below that the second criteria takes over, that being a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity will make the Wikidata notable. But if I remember correctly we only included entries with wiki project entries when Google handed over the data set. The others were not added to the Wikidata set. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If it is a disambig, a hoax or a vandalism-page that got an item, we can probably delete it when the sitelinks are removed. But if it is about a real event, a real (or fictional) person, a non-wp-notable company or brand, it can be kept. I guess it in many cases is no harm if the item is deleted in those cases either. But if they are related to other items here (the spouse of a team member in the Zanzibar association football team) they should be kept. If a sitelink is removed or not, is then of less importance. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: that record was created by Richard Norton so that fails "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable." Multichill (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Findagrave is a serious and publiable available reference (the criteria of it being authored by other people isn't in the notatibity criteria). The fact that it exist also shows that other references about the person exist like the Funeral notice that it mentions. I would prefer if all the sources like the funeral notice would actually be cited in the Wikidata item but that criteria for notability is the existance of sources and not that the sources are cited. I don't get the impression that anything that's written in the item is based on sources on personal opinion instead of serious and public sources. ChristianKl (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
No, self-publish works like this are not a reliable or acceptable source. Multichill (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The page you linked to is about rules of enwiki. Wikidata explicitly allows self-published sources: "Self-published information (for example, personal blogs) are acceptable sources of information when they are used to support statements about their authors and the information is clearly not self-serving.". I don't think that the information about family relations is self-serving in a way that produces a conflict of interest.
Additionally from the RfC on conflicts of interests (which is linked by the Verifiability page) suggests: "
6. If you are an authority on an item (or a set of item), e.g. acting as their agent, or a company looking for the Wikidata items about their products (movies, cars, songs, etc.), you are allowed and indeed encouraged to keep the data about this item up-to-date and the coverage complete (e.g. box office, awards, cast, official Website, etc.). If you are an authority, you can also use your own website as a reference for the statements that you keep up-to-date or complete.
7. Do not use Wikidata as a venue for original publication or as the primary storage of your data. You should always publish the data under your control in an appropriate venue. This publication can at the same time be used as a source for the statements in Wikidata." ChristianKl (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Note that the Verifiability page recommends to "follow the guidelines outlined by Wikipedia for using questionable and self-published sources", in regard to web content, so the wikipedia guidelines are relevant here. Also the guidelines you quote only support using self-published sources for statements about their authors, not about other people. The notability guidelines say the item must be mentioned in serious references, and it seems to me that serious references should at least be reliable sources, whereas both Wikidata and Wikipedia only allow self-published sources for claims about themselves, and neither seem to regard them as reliable sources apart from that limited case. Silverfish (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The document says "authority on an item". A person who investigates their own family history in detail is an authority about it. More to the substance of the matter, why would it be good for Wikidata not to allow data like this to be posted for non-living persons? I think it would be great if there's a lot of information about family histories in Wikidata as it allows automated analysis if there's a lot of data. I don't think the data quality with family histoires created by individuals with the interest in researching it is likely to lower quality then a database like GeoNames from which tons of Wikidata items get created after the Swedish Wikipedia creates articles on them. ChristianKl (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Most social network posts likely aren't serious references. A meme that get's shared widely on social networks generally isn't a serious reference. On the other hand sources that do try to engage in research and try to accurately report on the state of the world are serious. ChristianKl (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

What went wrong in creation of P2959?

As you can see in the discussion, I was the only one opposing creation of permanent duplicated item (P2959)  , which makes me wonder. I won't whine, but I think that something went wrong here. The property was introduced to circumvent a hardcoded Wikibase limitation that enforces each item to have at most one connected Wikipedia page per language.

  • If the community wants a Wikibase feature to be changed, the primary way should be at least to issue a Phabricator issue - but there was no such issue in the property proposal discussion. Only at the very end a rather hidden link to Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#One_site_link_per_item_limitation was created, but without any feedback to the property proposal. In particular no attempt was made to collect existing discussions of the issue.
  • No attempt was made to minimize the downsides of this hack. As it is now, the property is symmetric. As there is no "primary" item, every statement needs to be duplicated as well. Did nobody think about a directed property with rules to only add statements at the primary item?

Still opposing the property I can understand (and sure live with) both sides, but I don't understand why such property was created without trying to get more feedback from developers or other members of the community. I wish there was more thinking who could also have interested in (or against) creation of a property; or more general: who could help to find a solution of the underlying problem. We better need to get in touch and talk to each other instead of waiting for people to vote! -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is a primary item. Whichever item has instance of (P31) Universe (Q22924128) should have P31 and P2959 as its only statements. The point of this property proposal was to make a clear distinction between "real" items that have actual topics, and items that are used exclusively for technical purposes, which was not being made clear when said to be the same as (P460) as was previously being used instead. I agree that we need a real technical solution to these situations, but P2959 is a much better temporary measure than P460. --Yair rand (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
And "permanent" should here not be regarded as "never to be replaced by a better technical solution". We have the option to replace it, when (or if) the technical solution arrives. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Could you please document thee rules at Property_talk:P2959, possibly with constraints and/or queries? -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Please make clear, which scope P2959 should have and which Template:Soft redirect with Wikidata item (Q16956589). In the beginning redirects with this template worked like a charm, but since some time a trick must be applied to use it.--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a typical problem when mixing different use within the same system. When we have 2 items for the same concepts due to the fact that wikipedias were not able to define the concept in one article or in a similar way, we should create a new set of items for duplicates as technical trick and not as real items. The origin of the problem is the rule one WP article = one WD item. WP can split a concept into several articles without any logical rule and this is not possible for WD because we loose all the advantages of a systematic and logical classification if we follow that principle. Snipre (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: Regarding:"WP can split a concept into several articles without any logical rule and this is not possible for WD..."
Well, I would say that we theoretically can, it is only a matter if we want to. We have properties like history of topic (P2184) for the history of a concept. We could probably create a generic property to describe almost any deep aspect of a subject. The main topic of the category: Category:Discoveries by Christian Peters (Q9478954) is the astronomical discoveries of Christian Heinrich Friedrich Peters (Q57960). I do not expect that we ever will create a special property for "astronomical discoveries" of a person (or an instrument), but I guess we could create a generic property to describe the relation between the main topic of this category and the person. (no such item is [yet] created in this specific case) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
We have facet of (P1269). One of the examples on that property is early life and career of Julius Caesar (Q5326839), which uses facet of (P1269) Julius Caesar (Q1048). Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that one sitelink per item is one of the fundamental concepts of Wikidata and changing it would be a big change requiring a lot of work and testing. That means that even if the development team finally agree to change it, we will still be stuck with the current situation for the foreseeable future. As I pointed out in the property proposal, the duplicate items would still exist whether this property were created or not. The only change is that we now have a dedicated property to link the items instead of giving existing properties multiple contradictory meanings. - Nikki (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the outcome of the discussion is definitely better than the previous situations: either two items about the same person or items interlinked with P460. As most sitelinks seem to be for one Wikipedia, maybe the main problem to solve is that the language committee/WMF should simply approve a request for two separate Wikipedias.
    --- Jura 07:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Splitting the wiki may not be desired by the language community concerned, particularly when the difference is only orthographic rather than linguistic (e.g. shwiki). Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
      I would propose a virtual wiki within another wiki, allowing more than one sitelink-code for one single project, ie a partitioning of some projects. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @Th.: The main one is not shwiki and given that they have thousands of articles in two versions, I wouldn't attempt to tell them that it's not a lingustic difference ;)
        --- Jura 07:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
        • The northern frisian language community is really small and holds a couple of language varieties. As a result there are, for instance, multiple (Q23014464, Q23014466, Q23014467) permanent duplicates of January (Q108). Still, I don't think that frrwiki should be split into four (or more) seperate wiki's. However, the idea of virtual wiki's, having language subcodes but redirecting to the same wiki, might be very helpful! The links might still lead to frrwiki (or whatever other wiki like hs, hy etc.), but at wikidata they have multiple language codes to seperate and be able to link to various versions. Lymantria (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/permanent duplicates

Who can fix this page, it still tracks P460 instead of P2959? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Armenian interwiki needs checking

Please could an Armenian speaker take a look at overhead contact line (Q110701) and check whether the linked article on hywiki (hy:Կոնտակտային լարումներ) is associated with the correct item. I've checked all the interwikis on that item using google translate, and the Armenian one doesn't seem related to the others. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Thryduulf. Thanks, it's my fault. The Armenian article is on field of mechanics, not electricity. It's
English: contact stresses
Русский: контактные напряжения
But I did not succeed to find similar page in Wikis. - Kareyac (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Mechanics really isn't my subject, but the closest I think I can find on en.wp is contact mechanics (Q1783143) or stress analysis (Q1408487). It's possible that there isn't a directly equivalent article though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems contact mechanics (Q1783143) to be the nearest one. - Kareyac (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we have semi-protection for (Q714958) ?

This item is about a Vietnamese human rights activist currently in Taiwan. There is a well-known Long-term-abuse called Nipponese Dog Calvero who keeps editing numerous projects. His edits confuse me because he'll try to make extra pages about the priest, even though a page exists. The Wikidata item gets changed every few days. When the LTA's pages get removed, the ENwiki admins delete them and delete the links on Wikidata to remove the link on here. The amount of spam from random IP's and accounts is getting annoying since it is on my watchlist. I ask for temporary semi-protection for a bit, at least. Thank you. MechQuester (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 2 weeks. Please use WD:AN for such requests in the future. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Innocent bystander, ok. I understand MechQuester (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

He is missionned for a clear(hum) objective, how to model this ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The Secretary of Defense and his sub-secretaries are no less missioned for a clear objective. So what is the real problem you are trying to model? Your question is not clear on this point. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Izno How to link the office to the mission, of course. In Wikidata, is not that obvious ;) ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not obvious. --Izno (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
field of work (P101) -> Brexit (Q7888194). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is Christmas ornament (Q270286) really an instance of Christmas tradition (Q717040)?

I stumbled upon Christmas ornament (Q270286)      and I wonder if it's correct that it's an instance of Christmas tradition (Q717040)     ? It looks a bit odd to me, but maybe there are arguments why this is done in this way? //Mippzon (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This should be a subclass. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Have updated now! //Mippzon (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Property:P1480

I left a message on the property talk page a while ago, but didn't get any reply. There are two issues with this property:

  1. It is mostly supposed to be used as a qualifier to indicate that a value is approximate, speculative, etc. The current label ("sourcing circumstances") does not reflect that at all. "Circumstances" is fuzzy, and the property has nothing special to do with sourcing (it should reflect what it given in a source, but just like any other property). Any idea for a better label ?
  1. The description states that it can use values like "misprint", but that I do not think that makes much sense. Shouldn't we use literal translation (P2441) for that ?

--Zolo (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I need a qualifier

Hello.

Nea Salamis Famagusta (Q6165489) (a sports club with football and volleyball team) had its headquarters in Famagusta untill 1974. After 1974 the football team had its headquarters in Larnaka and the volleyball team in Limassol. How can I show in headquarters location (P159) that the Larnaca (Q171882) is for the football team and Limassol (Q185632) is for the volleyball team? Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I would add two "preffered rank" statements
P159:Larnaca/applies to part (P518):Football/start date:1974
P159:Limassol/P518:Volleyboll/start date:1974
And having a third "normal rank" statement for the old data:
P159:Famagusta/end date:1974
-- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Innocent bystander Thanks! Can you check it now? Xaris333 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I would create two items for the two parts linked with has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361). author  TomT0m / talk page 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
As TomT0m says above. I have also in other places heard objections against directly linking the "part" in such qualifiers (that we rather should describe the part than linking it). P518 is then probably more for items that should not be split in this way. You should is such cases probably add "Football" instead of "Nea Salamis Famagusta FC" in the P518-qualifier. In this case there are already items about the "FC" and "VC"-teams and they have P159-statements of their own. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would expect that even after 1974 there's an official headquarter where the club is registered with government authorities if it's indead still a club and not two clubs. ChristianKl (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of P1629 for external IDs

When I proposed Wikidata item of this property (P1629), I had in mind (as the English description makes clear) an "item corresponding exactly to the concept represented by the property". For example, for ORCID iD (P496), the value of P1629 is ORCID iD (Q51044), which is an subclass of unique identifier (Q6545185). For P7 (P7), it is brother (Q10861465).

However, some of our colleagues have interpreted P1629 more loosely leading to examples for some external IDs, like IMDb ID (P345) -> Internet Movie Database (Q37312).

(Others are using it as a qualifier, as on Gabriel Gouttard (Q19660075) and others).

Can somebody help with cleaning this up, and setting appropriate constraints, please? I suggest we make an equivalent item for each Property which is an external-ID.

Or are people content with the status quo? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Allowed value as property

Is there a reason why "Allowed value" is currently no property and the constraints of the allowed values get often hardcoded in the discussion page? 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)ChristianKl (talk)

Let's make a Constraint:Contemporary

I propose to create a new constraint, Constraint:Contemporary, which enforces the following statement:

The start date, or foundation date, or birth date (if exists) of X is before the end date, or dissolution date, or death date (if exists) of Y. Also, the start date, or foundation date, or birth date (if exists) of Y is before the end date, or dissolution date, or death date (if exists) of X. Or viceversa, replacing every X by Y and every Y by X.

... which means that there is a range of time in history (or a discrete value of time in Wikidata) when both X and Y were alive or active.

0 .. .. +∞
X, still not Y X and Y Y, not X
or
Y, still not X Y and X X, not Y

This constraint is particularly relevant for many properties and can only be applied right now using complex constraints.

For example, an approximation as a complex constraint for student (P802)...

  Student didn't live during the same time as his/her teacher
death date of person A is before birth date of person B
Violations query: SELECT DISTINCT ?item { { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P802 ?item2; p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth1_node . ?birth1_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P570/psv:P570 ?death2_node . ?death2_node wikibase:timeValue ?death2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth1 > ?death2) } } UNION { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P802 ?item2; p:P570/psv:P570 ?death1_node . ?death1_node wikibase:timeValue ?death1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth2_node . ?birth2_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth2 > ?death1) } } }

... and, therefore, for student of (P1066)...

  Teacher didn't live during the same time as his/her student
death date of person A is before birth date of person B
Violations query: SELECT DISTINCT ?item { { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P1066 ?item2; p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth1_node . ?birth1_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P570/psv:P570 ?death2_node . ?death2_node wikibase:timeValue ?death2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth1 > ?death2) } } UNION { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P1066 ?item2; p:P570/psv:P570 ?death1_node . ?death1_node wikibase:timeValue ?death1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth2_node . ?birth2_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth2 > ?death1) } } }

Likewise for doctoral student (P185) and doctoral advisor (P184), mother (P25) and child (P40), member of (P463), employer (P108), religion or worldview (P140), spouse (P26), unmarried partner (P451), educated at (P69), country of citizenship (P27), affiliation (P1416), killed by (P157), etc. --abián 10:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime you can use {{Complex constraint}}, you can see the current reports at Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations. Multichill (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
What you propose sounds like a generalization of {{Constraint:Diff within range}} to use a different item as the source of the time to compare to. @Ivan A. Krestinin:, is this feasible? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  Created the Template:Constraint:Contemporary. Now, we need Ivan A. Krestinin's comments. --abián 15:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
{{Constraint:Diff within range}} functionality was extended as suggested by LaddΩ. Lets try. I did not test the code yet. Some bugs can be in it. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivan A. Krestinin. However, for this case, a generalization of {{Constraint:Diff within range}} doesn't seem to be enough. We need to consider also, and simultaneously, the properties for the end date, and dissolution date, and death date. And not only the birth date, but also the start date and the foundation date (for a religion, for an institution, etc.). Otherwise, we will never detect someone tagged as Christian who was born 3000 years ago, or someone who studied in a university that disappeared before this student was born.
Formally, we need to check if the following statement is true:

 (
     (
         A.start time (P580) ≤ B.end time (P582) OR
         A.start time (P580) ≤ B.date of death (P570) OR
         A.start time (P580) ≤ B.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) OR
         A.date of birth (P569) ≤ B.end time (P582) OR
         A.date of birth (P569) ≤ B.date of death (P570) OR
         A.date of birth (P569) ≤ B.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) OR
         A.inception (P571) ≤ B.end time (P582) OR
         A.inception (P571) ≤ B.date of death (P570) OR
         A.inception (P571) ≤ B.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED A.start time (P580) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.date of birth (P569) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.inception (P571)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED B.end time (P582) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.date of death (P570) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)
     )
 ) AND (
     (
         B.start time (P580) ≤ A.end time (P582) OR
         B.start time (P580) ≤ A.date of death (P570) OR
         B.start time (P580) ≤ A.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) OR
         B.date of birth (P569) ≤ A.end time (P582) OR
         B.date of birth (P569) ≤ A.date of death (P570) OR
         B.date of birth (P569) ≤ A.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) OR
         B.inception (P571) ≤ A.end time (P582) OR
         B.inception (P571) ≤ A.date of death (P570) OR
         B.inception (P571) ≤ A.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED B.start time (P580) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.date of birth (P569) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.inception (P571)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED A.end time (P582) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.date of death (P570) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576)
     )
 )

... where A is the subject (an item) with a property P that has the Constraint:Contemporary, and B is the item linked as a value for this property P. If the statement above is false, we have a constraint violation.
Would it be possible to develop this constraint? It would be widely used and, definitely, it would improve the consistency of the data of this project. --abián 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can be wrong, but this constraint can be represented using several {{Constraint:Diff within range}} and {{Constraint:Item}} constraints. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin: I conclude that you're right, xD your new functionality for {{Constraint:Diff within range}} is enough. I will test it.
Thanks for your help and for your infinite patience. --abián 18:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin:   Partially done and working. Now, we would need to distinguish every {{Constraint:Diff within range}} from the rest. --abián 11:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

how to tag that someone has worked as a coach/manager for a football club/team

Hi. I would like to import football managers career data, as I've done for footballers in the last few months. But it seems there are different ways to describe it, and I don't know the one we should prefer :

  1. the "Paulo Fonseca" method (Q10346582), proposed by Bthfan in 2014 in WikiProject Sports: use occupation (P106)   → association football coach (Q628099) (or related subclass), of (P642) as qualifier to state the club + start time (P580) and end time (P582)
  2. the "Carlo Ancelotti" method (Q174614) (Jose Mourinho has the same): use employer (P108)   → the club or the team, position held (P39)   as qualifier to state the function (association football coach (Q628099) or related subclass) + start time (P580)   and end time (P582)  

I think the 2nd method is not perfectly adapted for national football team duties (France national association football team (Q47774) is not the employer (P108)  , French Football Federation (Q244750) is), so I may prefer the 1st... but occupation (P106)   does not seem to me the appropriate property to describe the main steps of a career (we use position held (P39)   for this, I guess...). What do you think about it ? --H4stings (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In your example, the claim is already made via head coach (P286) in France national association football team (Q47774) (note it should have dates as well). It is enough on its own, we don't have to make reciprocating claims for everything. Danrok (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to display a historical view of the whole career for any coach (in Wikipedia infoboxes) - not just the current job, so head coach (P286) in France national association football team (Q47774) is not sufficient for me.
I thought about it and a third way to describe a coach career could be the following: use member of sports team (P54)   → the club or the team (as for players), position held (P39)   as qualifier to state the function (association football coach (Q628099) or related subclass) even if it is not yet allowed + start time (P580)   and end time (P582)   as qualifier. --H4stings (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@H4stings: If you need to use this to create a table of teams the person has coached in a Wikipedia template, then it seems to me that there are grounds for creating a specific property for this, i.e. head coach of. Danrok (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: oh ! OK... you think member of sports team (P54)   is a too much different concept ? --H4stings (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@H4stings: Many coaches are former players, so if you were to use member of sports team (P54) for coaches, then how would we separate teams the person has played for/coached for, in infoboxes? Danrok (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
With position held (P39)   as a qualifier, I thought. To be true I've never asked for a property creation, I don't know how it works and how much it is complicated (or not). H4stings (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Finally, I've just proposed a property creation : Wikidata:Property proposal/head coach of. --H4stings (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

at this point, 5 different solutions have been exposed:

  1. occupation (P106)   → association football coach (Q628099) (or related subclass) / of (P642) as qualifier: supported by Bthfan (in 2014)
  2. employer (P108)   → the club/team / subject has role (P2868)   as qualifier: supported by Casper Tinan
  3. member of sports team (P54)   → the club/team, subject has role (P2868)   as qualifier: seems supported by Thryduulf
  4. position held (P39)   → association football coach (Q628099), of (P642) as qualifier: supported by Pigsonthewing
  5. new dedicated property : supported by Danrok

And me... I prefer 5 or 3, and I think 1 and 2 are not the best property for what I want. Any new opinion would be helpful. --H4stings (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is other solutions :
The last solution is generic to any class and is a construction to denote that any instance of the class has the statement(s).author  TomT0m / talk page 16:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of contributor (Q20204892) at Christian Marmonnier (Q2387108) seems horribly convoluted way, property needed

It has been mentioned previously, though not progressed, that we need to have something like a property "contributed to" that mirrors contributor to the creative work or subject (P767). Something like this could be used to put on an author's wikidata page the biographical dictionaries, encyclopaedias, journals, ... to which they contributed. This then could be used in a structured sense at the other sites, especially the Wikisources. While P767 has use from the compiled work side, it doesn't have sufficient fine detail for journals, eg. years of contribution become difficult. Similarly where someone's contributions predominantly display under a set of initials thinking Encyclopaedia Britannica and Dictionary of National Biography, those initials are meaningful. They have to be better than that conflicted example at Christian Marmonnier (Q2387108) which is structured data that is not sustainable though the only current presentable form.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The relationships of authors of encyclopedia can already by modeled via "author" of the encyplopedia item (and it shows in Resonator when you browse the page of the author). In the case towards which you linked there no source, so it's hard to see what might be the best way to describe the relationship. ChristianKl (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I would use author for the article that the person wrote, though not for the whole of the corpus. What I am trying to demonstrate is the relationship between the corpus and the writer from the writer's side. Plus for the late 19thC and early 20thC works they utilise acronyms/initials for the writers in the corpus, this wouldn't be represented at the article level. There are many biographical dictionaries that have the relationships that need to be demonstrated. Further, your plan only works where we have the article level data, this is not the case with many works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Member of a federation

Hello.

1) I want to show that APOEL F.C. (Q131378) is a member of Cyprus Football Association (Q473248) since 1934. Is that the right way [2]?

2) How can I show in Cyprus Football Association (Q473248) the founding members?

Xaris333 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For question 1 use member of (P463):
For question 2 use founded by (P112): and then the same for the other founders. See Q458#P112 for an example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thryduulf Thanks very much!! Xaris333 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Maritime Museum Rotterdam

Q1920457 and Q2755458 are for maritime museum in Rotterdam that seems to have the same location and Commons category, but have separate articles on Dutch and French wikipedias and separate items. Can someone that speaks Dutch check if those should not be merged? --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they were merged (in real life, not on Wikidata) in 2014. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #218

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Halls of fame

I'm thinking of importing Basketball Hall of Fame inductees. People have been inducted as players/coaches/referees. See, for example, en:Template:1959 Basketball HOF. What qualifier would you suggest for indicating that? Currently I'm thinking about P794 (P794). --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

name of items about wikimedia project pages

after a merge in Wikipedia:VisualEditor a new alias was introduced, related to wikisource project. This made me think about the main title.

I kinda agree that this "explanation pages" about VE or similar concept, both technical or community-oriented (such as such as definition of namespaces Q4994250, explanation of NPOV Q4656487, rules about usernames Q4664077 or whatever) should be linked on the same item, they show how a specific issue is declined on different platforms.

There are in any case some issues. Maybe they are not urgent, but I'd prefer to check.

The first one are the namespaces involved. Some of the linked pages are in the namespace that is called like the platform, which I guess is standardized as "ns:4" everywhere. Other pages are however "Ns:12" (help). So are we ok that we link different namespace in the same item? i mean are we ok on the long term with that, de facto we are obliged to do it in the present.

The second doubt I have is about the name. Some items use "Wikimedia:X", other ones "project:X" and other ones "Wikipedia:X" being Wikipedia the "main" project. Should we fix a standard for that? I think "Wikipedia:X" (or Wikisource:X", "Wikiquote:X") should be aliases but what is the best neutral title in your opinion? Q14204246 is called Wikimedia project page, so I guess that's why we'v been using both project and wikimedia as neutral terms for these items.

A reltad question was poesd in Talk:Q14204246#Namespaces_in_labels_and_aliases last year.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Project" is valid as an alias in all projects for ns:4, so my opinion is that "Project" is better than "Wikipedia/Wikisource/Wikimedia etc". Some projects have merged the Help: and Project:-namespaces, so cross-namespace-linking is probably necessary here. Not all projects have created a "Portal"-namespace, but that does not mean that they do not have such content. In such cases, you find the "portals" in Project-namespace, so also cross-namespace-links between Portal and Project is probably necessary. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorting items of a property

A long time ago, there was a discussion about to have the option to sort (changing the order) the items of a property in a wikidata page. Is this going to happen soon or later? Xaris333 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is still on my list. The next step is writing a gadget to do this. Amir wants to work on that once he has finished a few other things. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), thanks! I will wait. Xaris333 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

---
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Could we also ask for a Gadget that sort the claims within one property? For example population (P1082) who have timestamps, but not always in an order that makes sense. See Q2193230#P1082 for an example. If the latest is on the top or in the bottom is of less importance, as long as there is some kind of order for the eye. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that is indeed also a problem. I would do that as the second step after we are all ok with the ordering of statements. But depending on how much work it is we might also just do it in one go but I can't judge that right now. I'll need to find out. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

More useful way

What to do you prefer? Which is more useful?

etc

or

etc

Similar question about football grounds:

or

(But they may used the stadium for many periods).

Xaris333 (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think participant in (P1344) should be used as a qualifier to participant in (P1344), so my first thought is that it should be used with the league item and qualified with just start time and end time. The link between the individual seasons items and teams need only be one way from the season to the team. Similarly for grounds, I think start time and end time are the best, but the home venue can be included on each season item if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Director of agency property?

Hello. I'm working on the update of Q392528 and I can't find a property to add the name of the head of the agency, which has the title of "director". The only "director" property I've found so far is that of a cinema/film director. That said, it's the first time I'm working with properties here so I apologize if this is a silly question. Regards, --— MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

director / manager (P1037)? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Our interlanguage links for our resources are being deleted by Dexbot. The Wikidata announcement of 1 February 2016 stated "you will be able to manage the links between different language versions just in one place (on Wikidata) instead of having to do it in each article."

So our resource v:Anthropology has several interlanguage links such as it:Antropologia, where would these be here? I tried a search for anthropology and checked that Wikidata item. Neither our resource nor the Italian version are listed. Shouldn't these have been added here by an interproject bot before Dexbot started deleting them on Wikiversity? --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be at Q28598#sitelinks-wikiversity. If there is a problem with the bot, please contact its operator.
--- Jura 05:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

P2559 (Wikidata usage instructions)

Not sure where to post this so that somebody will actually do something about it; but it would be useful for a Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) statement, when it exists, to appear at the top of the statements about an item.

There's not a lot of point in having a disambiguation/usage hatnote if it is buried four screen-scrolls down. Jheald (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a phab ticket for it. To make sure that it's read, please include it in the description as well.
--- Jura 05:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Given name

If someone is "Per Olof Bernhard Wahlberg" do I add "Per" and "Olof" and "Bernhard" as given name? or just "Per"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Add them all, with the first one as preferred value. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Why couldn't all those statements have the same rank (either preferred, or normal)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess the friends of "Per Olof Bernhard Wahlberg" did not call him "Per Olof Bernhard" on a daily basis. But you also have to be aware of that the first is not always the one who is used daily. The example-name sound very Swedish to me and we have here no preference to always let the most used name stay first. It could be both "Bernhard" and the combination "Per Olof". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1:? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I came across this approach using ranks and another using qualifiers. There were also some using deprecated rank. Personally, I haven't quite finished adding the "first" given name to items, so I haven't developed strong preference except that I don't think deprecated rank should be used.
    --- Jura 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lonely aliases

SELECT ?item ?lang {
  ?item skos:altLabel ?alias .
  BIND(LANG(?alias) AS ?lang) .
  # FILTER( ?lang = "my_language" ) .
  # FILTER( ?lang IN ( "my_language1", "my_language2" ) ) .
  MINUS {
    ?item rdfs:label ?label .
    BIND(LANG(?label) AS ?lang1) .
    FILTER(?lang1 = ?lang) .
  } .
} LIMIT 500
Try it!

This query returns items with aliases and no label in the same language (you can make filter it by your language(s)). I don't think it's likely to use a bot here as different actions may be required. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not working, or I'm just (un)lucky to look up at those items, which are outdated (for SPARQL). For Latvian it returns, for example, organizer (P664), which has label in Latvian. --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Strange, I'm sure it did work at some point. Otherwise, how would I have found this, this or this?
Anyway, anyone who can see where is the mistake, so that we work on fixing these using SPARQL? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Resources with titles that are in the plural

We have many resources on Wikiversity that have titles in the plural, e.g., v:Minerals. The resource is more than a description of what a mineral is and contains many examples of minerals including classifications. If I were to create an item here entitled minerals, what sort of difficulties, if any, would such an item have or be for Wikidata? --Marshallsumter (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The question to ask is: is it the same subject as the singular. How an article is written is largely immaterial. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Andreasmperu has not yet responded to my question on his talk page about why he reverted a few changes to interlanguage links to medical conditions, so I'm asking here to find out whether there's a good page or process for sorting things like this out.

Trying to get the right articles linked is difficult, because different Wikipedias take different approaches to articles. For example, the article w:en:Borderline personality disorder (also known as "Emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type") is mostly about ICD-10 F60.31, but mentions the other two types and the parent class. There is no separate article about the "parent" class of "Emotionally unstable personality disorder", which is ICD-10 F60.3. w:en:Emotionally unstable personality disorder redirects to the most well-known subtype.

But at the German Wikipedia, there are separate articles for the parent class (w:de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung, F60.3) and the subtypes (e.g., w:de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung, F60.31).

Can this be resolved with a some-to-many link, or can the English redirect for the parent class link to the German article for the parent class, or is there a better way of handling this? And, perhaps more importantly, which page is the best place for me to ask questions like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is just another version of the "Bonnie and Clyde problem" aka Phabricator T54564.
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T54564
Databases like ICD-10 are notorious for this because they list differences in concepts at a more specific level than Wikipedia, which tends to bundle concepts. Jane023 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me just add what needs to be done: w:en:Borderline personality disorder needs to be linked to w:de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung, because the latter is the only article at the German Wikipedia that deals with this subject. Currently this German article is excluded from all links to sister articles in other languages. I fixed the problem three times since September 2015. But each time User:Andreasmperu reverted - and without giving a reason or discussing something. On my talk page talk page she left commands and threats to block me.
User:Andreasmperu has several times before reverted correct EN-DE links that I had installed. When I followed her invitation to discuss things on her talk page, she again only uttered commands and threats. In one case she only left the correction in peace when another editor from the German Wikipedia repeated my correction: see her talk page.
Where are such problems resolved in Wikidata? --Saidmann (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Start by thinking first about the entities that are represented in Wikidata. What's a proper name for them? How do they relate to other entities? Then you can ask yourself which article on an individual Wikipedia best represents that class. It's possible to create a nearly empty article like "borderline personality disorder: borderline type" and add a link to it on the Wikidata item. Afterwards you can change the nearly empty article into a redirect. Unfortunately you can't add the link when it's a redirect page. Ontology first, links second.ChristianKl (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry this was not the problem. Three times, the problem had been fixed fine and without any adverse effects, but User:Andreasmperu reverted without properly considering the case. That was the problem. --Saidmann (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked at your edits. It seems to me like you tried to merge manually by deleting items from one concept to add them to the other instead of using the merge tool at the beginning. Then Andreasmperu revert the edit and now you merged the items. Merging seems to be an improvement about the previous status. Or do I misread the situation? ChristianKl (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I had to delete the wrong item first and then add the correct one. That was exactly what the pop-up window had instructed me to do. And it worked fine. The German article was at once linked to all its sister articles of other languages. And no damage was done anywhere. --Saidmann (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

For this example, would it be effective for me to do this:

  1. Turn w:en:Emotionally unstable personality disorder (currently a redirect) into a one-sentence stub.
  2. Add an interlanguage link to [[de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung]].
  3. Wait until a bot (are they still running?) picks up the link and fixes Wikidata.
  4. Turn the page back into a redirect.

Would that work, or would it break when I performed Step #4?

(ping) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Saidmann: You should not delete a valid sitelink unless you are moving it into another item. Unfortunately, every time you tried to fix borderline personality disorder (Q208166) (like in here, you left de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung without a Wikidata item. That was the reason for my warnings. I also asked you to read the article and compare it to the statements, specially the identifiers, in borderline personality disorder: borderline type (Q18710618), so you can realise that there is a match with de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung and not with de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung.
@WhatamIdoing: Effectively, only dewiki has two different articles: de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung (F60.3) and de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung or better yet "emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung des Borderline-Typs"/borderline personality disorder, borderline type (F60.31). As the parent article, borderline personality disorder (Q208166) contains most sitelinks, whereas the subclass borderline personality disorder: borderline type (Q18710618) only contained a sitelink to dewiki. I have checked a lot of articles linked to borderline personality disorder (Q208166) and they deal about F60.3 and not about F60.31 (so, all the statements are alright then). For instance, the Spanish version is a feature article and only mentions F60.31 as a variant of F60.3, but it does not develop any further than that. Finally, I do not understand your proposal about enwiki: like the other articles in borderline personality disorder (Q208166), en:Borderline personality disorder deals about F60.3 and not about F60.31 (which is only mentioned in this section), so there is no need to any fix whatsoever . Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@User:Andreasmperu, sorry you are utterly mistaken: en:Borderline personality disorder and all sister articles of all lanhuages deal almost exclusively with F60.31 - and not with the parent class F60.3. The parent class is unimportant in all these articles and is only mentioned in passing. Therefore we need to link en:Borderline personality disorder to de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung. Or in other words, the DE-article needs to be taken up into the family of all other language articles. --Saidmann (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. Also please note that the DSM categories do not have a split corresponding to F60.30 vs. F60.31. DSM has one category for both, as stated in de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung: "Das DSM-5 unterscheidet nicht zwischen diesen beiden Unterformen." And DSM ususally is the diagnostic tool for the disease. That is why all articles are in the DSM alias F60.31 family. Only the DE-article has been excluded due to a misunderstanding. Please put it back into the family. --Saidmann (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Andreasmperu, I think that the problem is that most of the infoboxes of the "sister articles" has a misleading ICD-10 number. The article content at enwiki, at least, is about the "borderline type", and the "impulsivity type" just gets a brief explanation. (That is, I read the article exactly the opposite from you: it is all about F60.31 and, in the section you link, it briefly mentions that F60.3 and F60.30 also exist.) The more fundamental problem is that the German Wikipedia community seems to write about psychiatric issues by following the ICD-10 classification, and the English Wikipedia prefers to follow the DSM, and the resulting list of conditions and names do not match.
I do not understand the rule you wrote, "You should not delete a valid sitelink unless you are moving it into another item." What if there is no other item to move it to and it is not the best sitelink to have in that item? In that situation, this rule amounts to "first come, first served" for sitelinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The DSM is the diagnostic tool used in the US by psychiatrists. It's not the usual tool that the average clinician in the world uses. ICD is the international standard. The DSM is an effort by the American Psychiatrist Association that doesn't have any international authority for setting standards. Even the official billing in the US orients itself at ICD codes (DSM codes get translated into ICD codes). The American Psychologists Association says: "The ICD is the global clinical and research standard for both physical and mental health conditions. [...] As a World Health Assembly member state, the United States is required by treaty to use the ICD [...] What's more, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requires the use of ICD diagnostic codes rather than DSM codes."
Do you know how psychiatrists bill patients they diagnose with DSM's Borderline personality disorder? Are you sure that they bill them with F60.31 and therefore the article in the English Wikipedia states the wrong ICD code in it's infobox? If that's the case why don't you edit the English article?
Furthermore what the English Wikipedia has to say is completely irrelevant to how articles of the German Wikipedia are linked to Wikidata items. :::Imagine that an electronic health record program has a "Show me the Wikipedia article for this condition button." By law in the US and also the rest of the world the electronic health record will sore ICD codes and not DSM codes. If you remove the links from the actual German page for F60.3, people might not find the correct article. ChristianKl (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, we have to check the classification codes, if problems arise. But we do not link codes but articles. Even if a code label is not the most appropriate one, that does not stop us from correctly linking the articles. We are not bots - we do read meanings. --Saidmann (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Christian, I've talked to multiple medical professionals from European countries, and I've yet to meet a psychiatrist or other mental health professional that does not consider the DSM to be the first and most important source. The ICD system is required for getting paid (see, e.g., all the parts of the APA webpage that you didn't quote). The ICD system is not required for practicing medicine. Personally, I think that the ICD system is a great approach for Wikipedia articles, even though it's not the approach taken at the English Wikipedia right now.
I agree with Saidman: we should be linking articles, not infobox numbers. The goal is to get the German Wikipedia articles paired with the matching articles at the other Wikipedias, so that readers who look for articles in other languages will go to articles on the same topics. We have not yet completely achieved this goal (despite your efforts with the one new redirect). When you are at w:en:Borderline personality disorder, and you click the link to the German Wikipedia, you should not end up at w:de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
We aren't linking English articles to German articles. That's not the way Wikidata is designed. We are linking articles to concepts. If you want to link English articles to German articles there are interwiki links that can fulfill that purpose. We have authorities that define what a medical illness is. The give
If Wikidata doesn't give someone who asks for the article that described the illness with ICD code X the relevant article it fails at it's job at providing linked data.
I think you are underrating the importance of electronic medical records and the interoperability of Wikidata with them. It might not be central today, but as time goes on, I think interoperability is vital. With a lot of electronic medical records it will get easy for a countries to publish statistics about the incidence of illnesses. Statistics that Wikipedia might integrate via infoboxes. If you a German article isn't linked with it's correct ICD code, it won't correctly show data like this. The fact that the English wikipedia doesn't focus on ICD codes should in no way imply that a German Wikipedia article doesn't have a right to be linked to the correct ICD code and be able to draw data like this, when it exists in the future. ChristianKl (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
So, then, looking at borderline personality disorder, are you suggesting that everything in that record is wrong except the ICD-10 code and the link to the German Wikipedia, including the name of the record? According to the authoritative source, ICD-10 F60.3 is not called "borderline personality disorder". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Ontology 101: Names are not the concepts they represent. The WHO page you link to doesn't that that F60.3 is not "borderline personality disorder". On the other hand plenty of people write that DSM's "borderline personality disorder" is equivalent to ICD-10 F60.3. As far as I access it's standard to bill people diagnosed with "borderline personality disorder" with ICD-10 F60.3. A computer that's told that a patient has DSM's "borderline personality disorder" is going to put down that the patient has ICD-10 F60.3 because of HIPPA and because that's the official conversion. You could also simply look at the sourcing of this entry. It refers to http://disease-ontology.org/term/DOID:10930 and that ontology clearly states that "borderline personality disorder" is ICD-10 F60.3. ChristianKl (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The links are still dysfunctional. When do we get working links? Also, when will the threat to ban me be taken away? The next dysfunctional EN-DE link is already waiting to be fixed. But my hands are tied. User:Andreasmperu has threatened to block me as soon as I do another correction. This is a situation I find hard to hit the right words for. --Saidmann (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Saidmann word to the wise - you are not the only case of German biting people trying to get work done; let German wikipedia be their own island; who cares about block threats - a block on German is a badge of honor; you need to find a friendly German admin (if there are any) to deal with their un-collaborative editors. Slowking4 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Professor is not an occupation

Hoi, there is an inherent problem with the notion that a professor is an occupation. It differs per country what is meant by a professor. It makes more sense to indicate that a professor is employed by a given university and when it must be, it can be indicated that a person hold the office of professor. In this way it is explicity correct for any and all countries and cultures. The occupation would then be whatever the person studied for or alternatively teaches. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here, a person can be "professor" in hir English description of his occupation while the Swedish says something else. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is both language-specific and culture-specific. "Professor" is very very ambiguous as a term itself and should probably never be used anywhere. A "professors name and title in Sweden" is probably an "position held (P39)" while "professor (chief of a research institute, assigned by the national government") is probably an occupation while "professor (salary-level in Sweden)" is more of a title. A person who have the title "Professor" in English but not in Swedish in Sweden, is probably a "University teacher with a Doctor degree" in many other places. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So in essence you agree. It should not be an occupation but at best a position. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You have previously informed us of what you perceive to be a problem and very few others agreed with you then. What differs now? --Izno (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
There likely shouldn't be an item named "professor" but items named "professor (title)" and "university teacher". Maybe also a bunch of additional items. We might also have items like "American University Professor". ChristianKl (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The current use of "professor" is ambiguous at best. It is mostly wrong as we have it as most "professors" are not even acknowledged as such they are known as "employed by" "Whatever university". The tenure does often not coincide with the employment. There are many types of professor and they may exist within one employment.
The notion that people do not express arguments but opinions do not negate the power of an argument. I care little for opinions I care strongly about arguments. What argument is there to maintain professor as an occupation when it is agreed that it does not fit our need? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is not really a current use of "professor". No item is assignent the plain text string "professor". To actually solve the issue we would need to decide on what items there should be. How those items should be named. What they should use as subclasses? How should the relevant contraints of properties look like?
You could by adding items for all the kinds of professors you think there are. ChristianKl (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
When professor is not an occupation, I would remove them all as an occupation. I would not add nonsensical (who would understand them in what language) subclasses. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you should delete data that doesn't violate constraints for the occupation property. If you think there should be constraints that forbid professor from being used this way, I think you should define those constraints.
As far as subtypes of professor. "Professor with German paygrade W2" and "Professor with German paygrade W3" seem to me like different concepts. Both of them are again very different from "professor as a title". ChristianKl (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
What item are we talking about? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
it is obviously plural Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Need query advice

I am looking for a way to find pages like c:Category:David Mevius on Commons, that page links to wikidata Q101932, but Q101932 does not have Commons category (P373) link pointing back to c:Category:David Mevius. Is there a query tool I can use to detect pages where such reciprocity relation is broken? --Jarekt (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

With this query you will find Category page having Authority control template and linked to WD item not having Commons category (P373). If you add tracking category to Authority control template (for wikidata use) you can add it to query. But it is of course listing also commons cats linked to wd category items (possible to list only these without Commons category (P373)). --Jklamo (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Jklamo, thanks but petscan will probably not work because it relies on pages linked to wikidata through sitelinks and in the case above we can't assume that. In the example above I was looking for a way to find categories that have an interwiki link to Wikidata item but wikidata item has no "Commons category (P373)" back to the category. I also assume that the item has no sitelink to the commons category. Such items might be good candidates for P373 property. I was thinking something along the lines of SQL query of Iwlinks_table for commons categories transcluding {{Authority control}} template intersected with a query of wikidata pages that use P373 property. I think I can use https://quarry.wmflabs.org/ to get the first list, but I do not think I can use it to get the second one. The second list (items with P373 property), I can get through petscan or SPARQL, but there are 1.5M such items. I need to find page-item pairs in the first list which are not in the second list, but I am not sure if there is a tool that can work with SQL and SPARQL. --Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated values & constraint violations

Oliver G. Pike (Q7087549) appears on Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2963 because the item has three values for Goodreads author ID (P2963). However, two of the three values are marked as "deprecated" (and have an end time, also), with only one being current. Is there a way to allow for this type of circumstance, in constraint violations? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Distinction of Protocol and Software

Hi, I've been updating and extending the Item Mumble (Q748932) for quite a while and a recurring problem is the distinction between the Protocol, that's spoken between the clients and a server and the Implementions of it. Would it be a good Idea to split this Item into one for the Protocol and one for each implementation of it? Would it be correct to see the Software "Mumble"(The Client developed by the Mumble's development team (Q25506107)), the Software "Plumble" (The Implementation for Android), etc. as Instances of the Protocol "Mumble"? -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the protocol relevant to the rest of the world? What is gained from describing the instances? What maybe should be documented is some of the technical data at e.g. en:Mumble (software). --Izno (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

President of the United States of America

Are we ever going to house more than the incumbent on the pages for "positions". Will they house all the presidents? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They should not because there is no point in having items for each and every position.. EG Mayor of Whereeverville. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh? We already have "incumbent" for "for each and every position" where the positions is extant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Portals, Schools, Departments, and parallel resources

At Wikiversity we can have many parallel resources focused on the same or very similar subject, e.g. v:Portal:Genetics and v:Genetics, how do I include both in genetics here? Or, should I create another item for genetics here? --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the v:genetics page should link to genetics (Q7162) and v:portal:Genetics should link to an item for Portal:Genetics on all sites (en.wp doesn't have one). See for example how Mathematics is organised: Portal:Mathematics (Q7778173) links to w:Portal:Mathematics and v:Portal:Mathematics, mathematics (Q395) links to w:Mathematics and v:Mathematics. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikidata

Hi all,

I am taking care of importing Italian WLM data into Wikidata. I've already read this, this, this, and this (with related links), and now I want to actually import some data (both from past lists and from a "new" database) as a first test. I've a few questions though.

  1. Since the Italian WLM IDs are currently created manually, what kind of "source" do you recommend to use for the statements? (cf. this)
  2. Although I'm doing my best to map the monuments to existing Wikidata items, there might be cases where no matches can be found. What happens if an item is created and then discovered to be already existing afterwards? Is there a way to add and use owl:sameAs links (or something similar)?
  3. What to do with monuments that are too "specific" (e.g. the arcade of a building, a single house from Pompeii, etc.)? Could they have their own Q number and then be linked to their related monument via e.g. a part of (P361) relation? Anything else than this, although probably more correct, would be more complex. I don't actually expect a huge number of such cases, still it would be good to have a shared policy.
  4. Do you think there should be any mandatory fields like the heritage status (cf. Wikidata:WikiProject WLM/How to map WLM data example#Step 1: What is implicitly known about the data?) ?

In order to get started with a few examples, I would just use the QuickStatements tool directly to add new claims to existing Wikidata items. But as for the creation of new items, is it still ok to insert them via QuickStatements? I think this could be a good way to get some quick feedback on them, since they would appear immediately on Wikidata. Maybe some "WLM Italy" (or similar) user to only insert WLM-related data could help "control" this process? Nvitucci (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've numbered your questions or ease of reference. Regarding question 2, items can be merged, though of course all reasonable steps should be taken to avoid this situation. Regarding question 3, yes, use part of (P361). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (4) If you create (or update) items for Italian monuments, you might be able to create statements for most of the constraints on Property talk:P2186. These aren't compulsory, but if you have the information, please add it.
(1) You could make an item for "file received from WM Italia" and add this with imported from Wikimedia project (P143).
If you hesitate creating items with QuickStatements (Q20084080), you might want to create only a few and then ask people from the Wikiproject to review.
--- Jura 06:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In the meanwhile I have updated an example item and I have a couple questions:

  1. Although there is an Italian label it is shown as having "no label": what do you recommend to do? To assign an English label with the same text as the Italian one?
  2. I sourced the claims with Wiki Loves Monuments Italia since I have imported such data from past WLM lists. Do you agree?
  3. Since some information about location was already present (imported from the Italian Wikipedia), now there are two references on the same claims. What do you recommend here? Should claims be added only if there is no existing information, or is having multiple references actually good because it gives more support to the claims?
  4. My main concern is about the usage of heritage status: this property is recommended when Property:P2186 is used, but I am not sure about the value to assign since the item is not necessarily present in any Italian list of monuments (e.g. it could be an interesting "palazzo" or small church). I'm using a general "cultural property" item, but I'm not sure what to do. Is there any constraint here? Is Property:P31 preferable, or maybe no property at all unless the item is listed somewhere?

--- Nvitucci (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that User:Jura1 correctly replaced the Commons Category with a more specific one, but the one that was added before was taken directly from WLM (and can be found on the Monument API too). Therefore, when importing from WLM, it might make sense to check whether there is a more specific Commons Category before inserting the listed one; how to do it? --- Nvitucci (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does it make sense to use date of death property on living people's items?

Is is useful to indicate that a person is living? I am using date of death (P570) with no value for that (as in this example). But I haven't seen any other item having this, so I'm asking. --Gikü (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is the intended purpose. Some sort of "living" qualifier would be the better way forward, but I have yet to see use of any such qualifier. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
For immortals, that could work, otherwise no. To state when someone was alive, use P1317.
--- Jura 17:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think currently if somebody does not have date of death, it's presumed this person is alive. Obviously not true for people born in 16th century (unless they are one of the Highlanders clan ;) but in this case we should use "unknown" date of death - which should say "we know this person is dead, but don't know when". I agree that "no value" more fit for immortals, adding "no value" to every living person in wikidata sounds IMHO less useful. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thank you! --Gikü (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary entries

I tried to enter a Wiktionary entry but failed. When indicating the "Other sites" is "wikt", without the quotes, the correct abbreviation to use for this wiki? --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not available yet, its structure requires some work. See Wikidata:Wiktionary. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about merging

Hi, Q23918662 is a Swedish person, and Q23918488 is a redirect with a misspelled name at svwiki to the same person. I assume that correct procedure is to remove the sitelink to the svwiki redirect page from Q23918488, and then merge the 2 items. Is this correct? Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum: Yes, feel free to do so! It happened when Janee merged two articles on svwiki. Since they were about exactly the same topic, there is nothing to save here. If the article about Niklas Enebloms wife (or anything/body else) would have been merged into the article about him, they should not have been merged. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  Done, thank you Innocent bystander. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Acting President

How can we say that someone is "acting" in a position because the full position holder has died or resigned, but he is not really considered a full-right position holder. For instance Alain Poher (Q12950) following the death of Georges Pompidou and acted as such until new elections were held.

One solution would be to use dedicated items like position held (P39)acting governor (Q4676866), but I do not like that very much. First because it would require many ad hoc items, and second because it makes follows (P155)/followed by (P156) chains harder to follow. I would rather use position held (P39)list of governors of Alabama (Q558677) with a qualifier, but which one ? --Zolo (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

as:acting (Q4676846)? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There's also "president elect" type situations as well, i.e. elected to the position, but not yet formally sworn in. Danrok (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should use "deprecated rank" for that. Some never take office.
--- Jura 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
For acting president, please see Property_talk:P39#Qualifier_as_.28P794.29_for_.22acting_governor.22.2C_.22military_governor.22
--- Jura 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I had forgotten about P794 (P794), that seems to make sense.
President elect may call a different solution,: when someone is acting president, there is no other president in office, and he should probably show up in a chronological list, as follows (P155), or as the de facto president at a given date. That is not the case for the president elect before she takes office. I don't think using the deprecated rank is the way to go though. If a president elect dies before taking office, the claim that she was president elect is still valid. -Zolo (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess it would be possible to have a position "president elect", but a statement that a president-elect who hasn't assumed office was actually president would be an incorrect one. We had gotten that wrong on Q78869 and should attempt to avoid this in the future. Obviously, "successful candidate" on the election item can still work out.
--- Jura 07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Once the US presidential election results are known, we should have a statement: US President: X, start date: 20 January 2017. But if she is murdered before taking office, then the statement will need to be deprecated. If we want to say that she is President elect starting in November 2016, we would probably need something different, and perhaps a "president elect" item.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zolo (talk • contribs).
We could also have End Date January 2021, but the statement wouldn't be correct either. A list of president should only include actual presidents.
--- Jura 07:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
we could have officeholders from date to date, so that we could reflect all the officeholder metadata as indicated in infoboxes. and a bot to update status when the oath of office is taken or change of command. you could have a separate item for officeholders who died before taking office. Slowking4 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Bonnie village and Clyde town

We have many articles on svwiki about a pair or a group of settlements. Falmark (Q644563) is such an example. Like "Bonnie and Clyde" it uses has part(s) (P527) to link to the two "parts" here. (One of them have a sitelink to nlwiki.) The P31-statement in those items are today not consistent at all. I now came across Kopparmora (Q2723730) where the svwiki-article is a two-settlement article while the other articles are only about the larger settlement. I therefor intend to split this too. Anybody against a "Group of settlements"-item?

I also know some cases when the svwiki article is about both a settlement and an island. I have no solution for such cases, but you maybe have one? A "group of places"? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  Like the heading --Edgars2007 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It is an incorrect heading and should be "Bonnie & Clyde group of settlements and Clyde town" Like the   Like button though - I was looking for that earlier today! Jane023 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have created group of settlements (Q25964111) now (see it as a test this far) and have implemented it at Kopparmora (Q25964235) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: I am well aware of the problem. Your solution is probably excellent for those kind of settlements where SCB har grouped some villages together. However it is harder when those villages grows and it becomes unclear if it is one or more villages. For historical places this may be of concern. The same issue must also exist where some village grows and incorporates other villages. London didn't use to be as large as it now is and some of those villages around it are now part of London instead. How are those handled? Or is that an unrelated issue? For village/island a similar item should probably be created. It should probably also be able to use other sorts of geographical entities other than islands though. Getterön (Q1520101) which is a settlement and used to be an island but now is a peninsula may be an example. --Averater (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Averater: The largest problem probably is "instance of:populated place and a City/Municipality (or other kind of low level administrative entity)". This solution probably fits those cases too, but it would probably cause a riot if I try to split up the interwiki in many of those cases.
Wikidata as a support for Wikipedia is mainly about infoboxes. If a small village (småort) has been amalgamated into a large city and is only mentioned in the text of the article, but not notable enough to be mentioned in the infobox, an "instance of:group of something"-item is probably not worth the effort. The village could for statistical reasons stay alone in the database here without being linked to any "group-item" or anything else. If somebody wants to create a "group-item" for those cases, I would not oppose it, but I do not think it is worth the effort. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Esquilo have edited a lot about the islands and villages (småorter) in the Stockholm archipelago (Q764547). Often one of the villages on the island have the same name as the island itself. If the infobox then is both about the village and the island, you get problems if both the population/area of the village and the population/area of the island is added in the same item. nlwiki often have articles about the same village, but their articles and infoboxes says nothing about the island. If the infobox says nothing about the island, I do not think we have any problems, but as soon they do, the problems are there. I do not want to prevent Esquilo and others to merge article-subjects in this way. In fact, I very much like the idea, since it largely improves the quality of the articles. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this more of a typical Bonnie and Clyde problem? The same issue is for lots of larger islands such as Manhattan. The problem I see concerns size. If a settlement covers more than the main island or only part of it the size differs. As long as it is clear if the infobox (and the WD item) relates to one or the other it should be fine. However that is unfortunately often not the case. Sometimes it can be read as if the island has changed its size if the settlements has grown. --Averater (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
minor locality in Sweden (Q14839548) is to a large extent an artificial entity created by SCB. A village on a small isle have it's natural boundry defined by the waterfront (even if the village's outback often comprises several nearby islets). The distance between inividual buildings are mostly irrelevant. Södra Stavsudda (Q10689008) is a good example. Larger isles like Möja (Q2120552) are big enough to have more than one village, but in those cases no village have ever the same name as the isle. So, for isles with just one village, I see no point in separating the two. Population and area should be the same. /ℇsquilo 11:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
These entities are definitely artificial, but those are the numbers we have in our infoboxes. If you read the first SCB-report for småorter in 1990, most authorities they cooperated with, thought they were a bad idea. I tend to agree... We have no statistics for the traditional villages at all, that I am aware of. We can look into the official record from 1890 and do the head counting ourselves, but that is close to OR. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, småort is something special. The kind of islands common on the west coast of Sweden I was thinking of where area may seem weird are for example Styrsö (Q1015454) Where the island and the village has the same name and which is refereed to may be clear from context. There though SCB has some definition on what area the village uses I would normally read any area as the area of the island. An infobox for the village with its area may then be misleading. That may very well be more of an issue for the infobox to make it clear than for WD where the island and the village probably already has different items. One example where the village only usesa small part of the island is Björkö (Q2586650). --Averater (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

how to harvest properties from list of items

I have more questions about available tools. This one hopefully easy. If I have a list of items how do I harvest a single property from them. I was looking at this list and were trying to harvest Commons Creator page (P1472) for all of them. I worked with PetScan, but so far did not figured out if it can do it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You could use SPARQL like SELECT ?item ?value { VALUES ?item { wd:Q1 wd:Q2 ... } . ?item wdt:P1472 ?value }. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Matěj, thank you I will try it. I guess it is time to learn some SPARQL. --Jarekt (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Should an official website which no longer exits be kept on as a property of an item? See f.ex The A-Team movie where the official website no longer exists and the domain isn't even registered. I tried removing the property since it didn't seem to make any sense to keep it but it was re-added by a bot. TommyG (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, you were most likely not intentionally reverted. The website was re-added since it still can be found on enwp. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I turned it into deprecated rank now, with reason for deprecated rank (P2241):"Dead link" as qualifier. I do not know if this is a good way to solve it, but it is a start. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Better put an end date (maybe with "unknown value" for example.) It'll make clear that the site is no longer available. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably right! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, no I didn't think that I was intentionally reverted but wanted to ask here if there was a more correct procedure to handle such a case and apparently there was :-) TommyG (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody have a tool that helps me find pages on nlwiki with external link: [3] but without any sitelink to svwiki? (Many of them should probably be merged with svwiki-items, but definitely not all of them.) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: could it be only one page? Found only nl:Kagghamra. P.S. Maybe this will be interesting to you. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Somebody created articles on nlwiki based on this source some years ago. Since that page is a poor source for the names of these entities, they are not always found under the same name at nlwiki and svwiki. svwiki have articles about all of these entities. But in the case of "Kagghamra" it is described in the "group of settlements"-article of Kagghamra (Q20240949). I know I started to work through all these articles on nlwiki some years ago, but I never finished. And "Kagghamra" is far from the only "group of settlements"-solution on svwiki, so you should probably find many more. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said. Queried database for nlwiki pages with that external link, that don't have iw link to svwiki. Kagghamra was the only result. If you can point to some example articles, that are currently unconnected to svwiki, I could take a look, why they weren't found. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe User:Pasleim/projectmerge/nlwiki-svwiki helps. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/11195 (wikilinks). XXN, 08:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you XXN! that looks like a better source, since you here cannot trust that nlwiki and svwiki have the same name in the articles. This source, which the nlwiki-articles are based on, is not a very reliable source for the names of these places. You have to compare the 2005-census-data to be sure that they are about the same place. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess you could merge nl:Bergliden and nl:Österhagen och Bergliden on nlwiki if you like. The first one is from the 2005-census and the latter from the 2010-census. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
nl:Djupedalen is also a merge-candidate on nlwiki. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding the proper use of occupation (P106)

What is your opinion in cases like Mac Fhirbhisigh (Q16853742). It says that they are a family of historians and has occupations occupation (P106) of historian (Q201788), scribe (Q916292), translator (Q333634). Should such an item for a group of people (family, bothers, sisters, couples) have a property of profession? I think not, but I would appreciate your input. --FocalPoint (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not true for any group of people. For example an artistic collective could very well have "artist" as an occupation, true for a company either. For a family, it may be a slippery road (I can imagine "<jewish> occupation <bankers>" ... author  TomT0m / talk page 06:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we could have famous members of a family recorded in its family item. And then for each of them have its main occupation as a qualifier. --Melderick (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

machismo (Q842254): Maybe must be splitted?

Discussion here --ValterVB (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about changing an item

Hello, I have a question about Q17562865. It is a Wikimedia disambiguation page (P31:Q4167410) with only one sitelink to da:Aarhus Football Club. That page used to be a disambiguation page, but the users of dawiki have recently concluded that the title is in fact not ambiguous, and changed the page to an article about a certain former football club. I am not sure what to do here on Wikidata as a consequence. Should we:

  • Move da:Aarhus Football Club sitelink to a fresh new item and delete Q17562865 because it will no longer be notable, or
  • Delete the statement P31:Q4167410 and the current descriptions in many languages from Q17562865, and instead make new statements to declare it a former football club?

Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum: The second: I've cleared instance of (P31)Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), so now you can add new statements. --Epìdosis 22:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Epìdosis. I have added new statements. I thought that it might be a bad idea to fundamentally change the content of an existing item, but I take your word that it is OK. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I have tried to convince the svwiki-users to move or delete the page and create a new page instead. But it is very difficult to change their behavior. One large problem here, is that bots have added a lot of descriptions in many many languages in our disambig-items. It is a more or less hopeless thing to change/delete all those descriptions by hand. It is probably easier to delete it and start with a new item. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It is not difficult to delete all descriptions when you can just restored the very first revision of the item as was done in this case. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
In many cases, that can be done. But when ordinary items and disambigs have been merged, the edits of those bot are a big pain in the ***. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I use a tool called MediaWiki:Gadget-dataDrainer.js to clear all descriptions. Anyway only admins (and rollbackers?) can use it as noticed here. --Stryn (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I try to start following the first approach, as we should avoid re-purposing items.
--- Jura 12:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Jura1. There could be static mappings of disambiguation pages for example. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #219

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Category items in P279

Category items in P279 - is it good practice? Like Category:Indonesian sportspeople (Q8547438). --Voll (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No, category classifications differ in any Wikimedia projects and should not be included in Wikidata. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Should be done in some far future IMO. Would help a lot if categorization will be done on Wikidata instead of local Wikipedias. But for now, it's not so good practice. --Stryn (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
No. They have their clear deficiencies, and their project-specific nature means that Wikidata's aid in 'categorization' of them is not sensible. We have 'category's main topic' and 'category combines topics', and those are plainly sufficient for classification. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Floors above ground

I think we have a problem with (good faith) edits like this; the definition of floors above ground (P1101) says "attic included"; the figure imported from the English Wikipedia infobox does not include attics. Also, do we mean all attics (the dusty ones used for storage), or just those which are in everyday use as living or working spaces? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

According English Wikipedia infobox floor_count = "Number of floors expressed as a numerical value", not mentioned if attic is included or excluded. --Jklamo (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The number of floors is culturally distinct. English cannot claim exclusivity. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
How about using different units have have a unit that includes attics and one that excludes them? ChristianKl (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
We have qualifiers like including (P1012), so no unit is required.
It becomes more complicated if/when you describe the address of something. I am currently at the first floor of our house in English but on the second floor in my own language. - Innocent bystander (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In British English, the ground floor is numbered zero. In American English, it is numbered one. However, this is not about floor numbering, but which to include - no-one is suggesting that ground floors are not included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue at hand concerns the disparity between values used in the English Wikipedia and in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The differences may also come from the number of the highest floor, which not have to be the same as the number of floors. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No; it comes from the inclusion, or not, of attics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You did not respond to my proposal of P1012? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It didn't seem to be addressed to me. I don't see how an automated edit would know what qualifier to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The correct value to use would be the value as found in reliable sources. I've added a lot of "number of floors" to items by hand, and I would not recommend taking data from the Wikipedia infoboxes. It can be difficult to source this, even when using apparently reliable sources, let alone Wikipedia which is far less reliable. Danrok (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
If a source says "the building has three floors", do they include the attic, or not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Counting instances and classes

I have got a timeout. Could you improve it for me please? 

SELECT ?dummyLabel (COUNT(distinct ?item) as ?count) 
WHERE { 
?wiki0 <http://schema.org/about> ?item . 
?wiki0 <http://schema.org/isPartOf> <https://lv.wikipedia.org/> . 
{ ?item wdt:P31 ?dummy . } UNION { ?item wdt:P279 ?dummy . } .
?dummy rdfs:label ?dummyLabel .
FILTER (lang(?dummyLabel) = "lv")
}
GROUP BY ?dummyLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
Try it!

--Voll (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC) 

SELECT ?classLabel (COUNT(DISTINCT ?item) as ?count) WHERE {
  { SELECT ?classLabel ?item WHERE {
    ?wiki0 schema:isPartOf <https://lv.wikipedia.org/>; schema:about ?item .
    VALUES ?pred { wdt:P31 wdt:P279 } .
    ?item ?pred [ rdfs:label ?classLabel ] .
    FILTER (LANG(?classLabel) = "lv") .
  } LIMIT 80000 } .
}
GROUP BY ?classLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
Try it!
Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! --Voll (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd go for something like the below, but it gives similar results. 

SELECT ?dummyLabel ?count
{ 
	{
  		SELECT ?dummy (COUNT(distinct ?item) as ?count) 
		{ 
			?wiki0 schema:about ?item ; schema:isPartOf <https://lv.wikipedia.org/> . 
			{ ?item wdt:P31 ?dummy . } UNION { ?item wdt:P279 ?dummy . } .
		}
		GROUP BY ?dummy
	}
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "lv" .}
}
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
Try it!


--- Jura 14:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd add a star if you want really all subclasses as any subclass of à subclass of C is also a subclass of C. Plus if you really want all instances you'll need to count the instances of all the subclasses. The template {{Query instances}} is intended to retrieve them. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Q4167836

Subject was: Talk:Q4167836 [4]

??? --Luchibsl1 (talk) 07:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand that question (and how it could be related to Wikimedia category (Q4167836)). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you answer of "Tranlation in Bulgarian for Wikiversity" from Talk:Q4167836.--Luchibsl1 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Constraints on properties about humans

We have previously discussed the superfluous constraints (e.g. "must have date of birth") on properties like ORCID iD (P496), which is already constrained by "must be instance of human". We didn't reach a conclusion. Is there any reason we should not now remove them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI I created once Wikidata:Database reports/Humans with missing claims to provide working lists for people who want to fill in such missing data without abusing the constraint system. --Pasleim (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

ATP tennis player URLs

How did ATP player ID (P536) come to have the string "/wikidata/" in its formatter URL? Do we have a partnership with them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter is it "/wikidata/" or something other random text, but the url won't work if there's no text on it. --Stryn (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
For reference: en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_15#New_ATP_website. --Stryn (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hah, I have always thought, that it tells them, where users come from :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Importing tool

Hello, is there a tool that can take data from en:wiki infoboxes and add it to the Wikidata item?Ionutzmovie (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Harvest Templates (Q21914398). Lymantria (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Searching formatter URLs

The easiest way to find out of there is an existing external-ID property for, say, http://www.racing-reference.info/driver/ would be to search for the string "racing-reference.info" in formatter URLs. After experimenting, it seems that our "advanced search" will do that, best, if "Property talk", and no other option, is selected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

First Commons prototype is live \o/

Hey everyone :)

I just posted exciting news about structured data support for Commons at c:Commons talk:Structured data#It.27s_alive.21.

  • SPOILER* There is a first demo system now! *SPOILER*

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Splendid news! It looks great. We need to decide, as a (joint) community, what new properties we'll need. If we can agree that in advance, we can create a bunch as soon as the system is available in production. Perhaps we should set up Wikidata:Property proposal/Media? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I think we should have that in the future. For now it is likely too early though. Lots to do still ;-) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sitting here and it seems like you're voicing an assumption (that may [not] be documented) that we will be using Wikidata properties. Lydia, is it the case that Wikidata properties will be used for MediaInfo or is it the case that Commons will have their own set of properties? --Izno (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's intended to stand alone, then it should not use "Q" identifiers for photographer-items, but some other letter (and not "P"; "A" for author, maybe?). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The idea is to use the properties and items from Wikidata so we have a unified vocabulary across Wikimedia. This is important to for example make it easier to query things together. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
That sounds sensible. We still need a different letter for Commons creators, unless we're going to crate an item in Wikidata for every one of them. (If not, bags I get to be Q42 in Commons!) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The idea for linking to creators so far is phabricator:T127929. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  Like I wonder if eventually we will also want to have query endpoint for Commons (once we have enough data of course). --Laboramus (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
We definitely want to be able to query the data! :D I am not sure if it should be the same or a separate endpoint. We'll want to run queries that use both datasets definitely. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I guess, we will need a photo tagging bot soon to detect airplanes, cars, plants, people, ... (And with additional 32 mio items, we will need more hardware and maybe better software too.) --Molarus 02:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent units

I've written a simple script to detect properties in which quantities are used both with and without units. This usually means some bad data, as the same property (like length (P2043)) is not supposed to have values both with units and without units. For some properties it's ok, like maximum capacity (P1083), and some have exceptions. But I think it's still worth to review cases of mixed unit usage. So the list of suspect properties is at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Laboramus/Units and it has link to property-specific pages which lists all units used in this property. I welcome everybody to review it and fix the inconsistencies. Sometimes there are also weird things used as units - usually by mistake - so it may e useful to check the once-off units and see if they are indeed correct.

The page is not automatically updated now but I'll update it from time to time, and it there's interest I can set up auto-updates too.

P.S. Is there a page where quality tools are catalogued as such?

--Laboramus (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

StrepHit IEG renewal: call for support

(Begging pardon if you have already read this in the Wikidata mailing list)

Hi everyone,

If you care about data quality, you probably know that high quality is synonym of references to trusted sources.

That's why the primary sources tool is out there as a Wikidata gadget: Wikidata:Primary_sources_tool

The tool definitely needs an uplift. That's why I'm requesting a renewal of the StrepHit IEG.

Remember StrepHit, the Web agent that reads authoritative sources and feeds Wikidata with references? These 6 months of work have led to the release of the first version: its datasets are now in the primary sources tool, together with Freebase. To support the IEG renewal, feel free to play with them!

Please follow the instructions in this request for comment to activate the tool: Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Semi-automatic_Addition_of_References_to_Wikidata_Statements

Are you satisfied with it? Do you agree with the current discussion?

If you have any remark for improvement, please help me refine the renewal proposal via its talk page. If you think the primary sources tool requires a boost, please endorse the StrepHit IEG renewal!

m:Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Validation_via_References/Renewal

Cheers, --Hjfocs (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


I wrote a note on meta:Grants talk:IEG/StrepHit: Wikidata Statements Validation via References/Renewal. Supposedly that's were users should comment who question the use of the tool
--- Jura 09:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of statements in Wikipedias

Hello, Does any Wikipedias display Wikidata statements inclusive qualifiers and sources? Does any Wikipedias display Wikidata statements with properties which use the quantity datatype, and convert the quantities to use the local preferred units? I would like to see examples of Lua code to do these things. Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have set up some of these in Czech Wikipedia (mostly qualifiers, yet only one case we use references, not yet quantities with unit) but recently splitted one module to multiple submodules which isn't really good example of Lua code. Anyway, you can start at w:cs:Modul:Wikidata. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
For frwiki:
Qualifiers: for a relatively complex case, "Matériau" and "Statut patrimonial" in fr:Statue de la Liberté.
Numbers with units and conversion: yes, though in practice, conversion does not seem to be often needed. See fr:Alburquerque (Bohol)
Showsource : "dernière version" in fr:Python (langage). --Zolo (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
On svwiki we have support for units, some qualifiers and also some arbitrary accessed data. sv:John Bauer shows the qualifiers for start and end-date of spouse (P26). We lack support for unit-conversion and that is probably necessary in some cases. One such is if somebody uses non-metric units like miles and feet. A Swedish mile is much longer than an English mile and only pilots know about feet. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the examples from cswiki, frwiki and svwiki. We have a project in the Danish Wikipedia to improve how it uses Wikidata, and we will use these examples as inspiration. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Hello. Is there a way to show in a wikidata page of a sports team that its change its name in 2014? Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Use official name (P1448) with date qualifiers. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

query wikipedia categories

I would like to update w:de:Portal:Physik/Kalender. I thought of searching wikidata for physicists with this query, but most of the resulting people are only remotely connected to physics. Is there a way to only find Items, whose articles are categorized in w:de:Kategorie:Physiker? The category should only contain people known for their significant contribution to physics. I cannot think of any other filter criteria to test for.--Debenben (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

PS: Why is tinyurl on the blacklist? A registered users is not allowed to post tinyurl links on talk pages? seriously?--Debenben (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Use PetScan which can make a combination of a SPARQL query and articles in a category. And the shortener is blacklisted because spammer could abuse it. Dedicated shortener for SPARQL queries is being developed. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think he wanted to get not only items (PetScan functionality), but also dates and other stuff from SPARQL query. In this case you probably can't get desired results quickly and without pain :) The easiest would be running Petscan and then pass got items into SPARQL, but I think it coul time-out. But there should be some tool to make this process not so painful. --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer, PetScan did the job. I even wrote a python script to do the subsequent SPARQL querys, but since I don't have any experience I ran into more and more problems like the datetime package didn't exept negative years and people born on 1.1. when no date was specified. I don't think it is really worth the effort. I might still try it a different time, just to get used to the wikidata tools and formats.--Debenben (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Caption for audio and video files

We currently have media legend (P2096) to give a caption to image files, but I can't find an equivalent property for audio or video? If there isn't one, should media legend (P2096) expanded to "media legend" or do we need new properties? I'm currently using it for the caption of audio at Ding Dong Bell (Q5278123). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the domain of media legend (P2096) seems to me the better option than creating new properties. --Pasleim (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot see any problems with extending the range of this property. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

[unarchived] Following no objections I have now made this change. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about Medalists: need opinion

I just want to inform of the discussion in WikiProject Olympics, for the great impact it can have, we have a lot of items on athletes, competitions and championships. Any opinion is welcome --ValterVB (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Request a query

I started a page for requesting queries (Wikidata:Request a query). I don't think we have a page for that yet, and hopefully it will be useful. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This was the main request page till now, but yes, we probably need some "official" page for requests. But we definetely need to make a link to it somewhere. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Jens from my team is currently trying to work out a concept for a portal page for all things query service. I'll tell him to also include this page. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability of items for templates

If there are no interwiki links but one, is there a benefit of creating items for pages in template namespace? @‎GZWDer:
--- Jura 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


I did several 10000 of these recently and enwiki was completed just now. I'm currently doing frwiki. Adding that avoids us mixing them up with more useful items.
--- Jura 15:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/07&oldid=1102552463"