Open main menu

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/08

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.


Edits done by Xmlizer

Hi you all, Xmlizer (talkcontribslogs) the day before yesterday used reCh to do some semi-automatic edits but teh user imported too many useless data on Wikidata (example). A check of user's latest edits is needed. Could someone help me in this work? --★ → Airon 90 08:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I created User:Stryn/wrongpictures and User:Stryn/wrongpictures2 to possible find easier those wrong pictures. Some of them are correct additions though. Anyway those lists contains just some 6000 of his/her last edits, there are more than this, for example Q2749670. --Stryn (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I updated the page(s) and added all of user's image additions. --Stryn (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Could Vikidia, the free children's encyclopedia, use Wikidata?

For those who don't know, Vikidia is the wiki encyclopedia for children. It uses the same principles as Wikipedia, free-licenced, npov, but adapted to children.
In French, we have more than 22000 articles, and we have opened it in 8 languages by now.
We already use a lot the commons media database (through instant commons), and we could use a lot Wikidata, and we're wondering :

  1. Could we plug Wikidata on Vikidia's wikis to fill the templates?
  2. Since Vikidia is not part of the WMF*, could its interwikis be centralized on Wikidata?
    • if not, should we build our own data repository? and could it still be technically compliant with #1?

Thank you for your answers ! Plyd (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
* Vikidia is served by a French non-profit organization and not by the WMF (and will probably never be due to a bunch of US-related legal restrictions and the WMF's "Simple English" competition).
However Vikidia is very close to the Wikimedia projects, and lots of its contributors like me are also contributors here (or will be when they'll grow up ;) ), and Vikidia is also financially supported by Wikimedia's French chapter

Hi Plyd,
It's almost sure that Vikidia pages can be linked from Wikidata items as external identifiers for properties, and this would be a fantastic work that could be easily made by volunteers (you would only have to open some requests here). However, with interwikis, this process would be more complex, and the developers from the WMF would have to take part in it. As Vikidia is not a Wikimedia project, I figure out that, unfortunately, interconnecting by this way the Vikidias via Wikidata is not possible right now. But that's only my view.
Regards, --abián 10:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes as Abián says. You can not yet use the data from Wikidata in MediaWiki installations outside Wikimedia. I want to make it possible but it'll take time and is not super high on the list of things the development team needs to do right now. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers.
Abián: to whom such Vikidia pages external identifiers could be useful, if we cannot use them as interwiki? would it be a start for a later interwiki integration?
Lydia: what development is needed to reach this data integration into Vikidia? Plyd (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Plyd: You can use such external identifiers as interwikis but, since a real-time feature isn't available, you'll need a bot to keep them synchronized. This system could be similar to the old system that kept the Wikimedia interwikis synchronized until 2012. --abián 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, for the Klexikon we would like to use Wikidata content in info boxes, for geographical articles. Would that be possible nowadays? Kind regards Z. (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Not able to save

I'm trying to add chief executive officer to (Q223763) but the save button does not turn blue. Any thoughts on what I am missing? I added the field, the entry, a start date and a reference, but no luck.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Does the person have a item on Wikidata? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
No. It that a problem?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is. You need to create an item about person. --Edgars2007 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
What fields need to meet the notability standard and which do not, and how can I tell?--Sphilbrick (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that notability standard differs substantially from standard on Wikipedias. --Jklamo (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
This fulfills a structural need though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
In which case the person is notable here and you can create the item. However you must create the item first before trying to use it in another item. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Proper nouns

I'm a bit confused about the labels for some items. Some have the first word capitalized, e.g., 'Radar astronomy', as if it is a proper name like 'Las Vegas'. Aren't terms like radar astronomy supposed to be like 'radar astronomy'? In this case both 'Radar astronomy' and 'radar astronomy' refer to the same thing. Or, does wikidata prefer both? --Marshallsumter (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally Wikidata prefers lowercase labels for common nouns (in English and Welsh at least, in German all nouns are generally capitalised), however many labels are taken from the title of the associated Wikipedia article which canonically starts with a capital letter. My approach is to decapitalise if I'm editing the labels for any other reason but not to go out of my way to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I also convert English noun titles to lowercase when I stumble upon them -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 Fuzheado likes this. - I also tend to downcase things when I see them. -- Fuzheado (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No "founder" as position held?

Is it true that there is no Property:P39 for "founder" of something, such as (co)-founder of Wikipedia? Or founder of a company? Or do we have something we're using instead? -- Fuzheado (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

founded by (P112). --Yair rand (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You can search in the property namespace by prepending "P:" to your search string, e.g. P:founder or P:parent. LaddΩ chat ;) 21:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #220


Now we have Rosa, rosa... (Q26000000) and marriageable age (P3000).--GZWDer (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Err, marriageable age (P3000) appears to have been created without anybody other than the proposer commenting on the proposal. I thought that was frowned upon? Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
It's from Mr. Given Names (Jura1).--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
this is hardly adequate to meet the requirements at Wikidata:Property creators#Update the proposal page. As can be seen here and on the property's talk page, the property was not created correctly, according to Wikidata:Property creators#Create the property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  SOFIXIT! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: How should I fix a property created without a consensus? Why should Andy not mention the incomplete creation (whether or not he or someone else fixes it)? Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: My answer yesterday diappeared somewhere. The page you linked to above, does not tell what "consensus" is in this case. It only tells a proposal should stay at least a week, and it did. The proposal was un-opposed during that week, and I guess Jura1 also supported it, otherwise a creation would look strange. A proposal without oppose during one week could therefor be interpreted as "consensus". I agree that in the best of universes, it should have stayed open longer and with more support. But as I said, the result, as Jura1 interpreted it, was possible. You should also be aware that a group of simlair properties (P2999 for example) were created at the same time. Only looking into one single proposal is therefor not enough to see the whole picture. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: it's true consensus isn't explicitly defined there, but "no objection" != "consensus support" unless it is explicitly defined that way in my experience - if jura (or anyone else) supports a proposal that has no comments then they should vote in support of it not just create it. I'm also very curious as to why you think creating a bunch of properties at the same time without consensus is better than or excuses creating one without consensus!? Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: We obviously have different opinions here. I see a sort of consensus where you don't. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this is stretching the idea of "consensus", but OK for that. Let's suppose that Jura1 gave support votes and that might be taken as the absolute minimum to create a property. Border line to be honest in this time of summer vacations. What I wonder is how critical Jura1 has been. I especially wonder why age of candidacy (P2998) was not discussed more, as the proposal on voting age was commented on by me, as being overlapping with right to vote (P2964), but also different in approach. Voting age and age of candidacy are clearly related. Also I agree with Andy that the created properties and talk pages were less than complete. By the way, the way of reacting by Jura1 below - question about archiving, hence showing he has read this thread and that he doesn't give a .... - is a blunt insult to the people raising questions here. Lymantria (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lymantria: I do not say that these properties do not have flaws. What is "threshold of adulthood as recognized or declared in law". Which law, we have many! "youngest age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity". Looks more like a subject to a paper than a number to me! "minimum age at which a person is generally allowed by law to marry". I do not think that we have fully agreed about a definition of marriage yet! "minimum age at which a person can legally qualify to hold certain elected government offices". Age is not the only threshold here. There are several others! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Lymantria (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Bronze age Properties
That said, I still think these properties were created according to our rules as they are written today. We may or may not afterword have objections against the ideas behind these properties, but that could also be said about the properties we have had since Wikidata was a tiny toddler. We now have a PfD about a property which was created in May 2013. Our properties are not carved into rock. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm also concerned that GZWDer has been almost spamming the property proposal pages the last few weeks. Even a single new property should be well-justified; proposing a large number of properties definitely needs clear explanation. Maybe a wikiproject that has specific needs, or a plan to run some sort of bot pulling a particular set of data, or some consensus effort. In this case among the many age-related properties there was a comment that seems to have been ignored, to just create a single "minimum age" property and use appropriate qualifiers. This seems like a better approach than this host of new properties. I can understand in the case of external identifiers why it's good to have a long and detailed set of properties. But I'm definitely not sure in this case. In any case, jumping in and creating them without any comments at all really does seem to defeat what we've been trying to achieve with improving property creation recently. And proposing an overwhelming number like this makes it hard on everybody. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Somehow I find some of these comments disrespectful towards GZWDer who went through writing and creating all these proposals. They even took it upon them to create a separate subpages for each one. To comment here on GZWDer's work without actually reading the proposals or to commment here without bothering to participate in the discussion just illustrates how much we should probably care about these comments.
    --- Jura 11:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I never considered his making of many proposals as "spamming". I hope it inspires. Still, I may critisize some of his proposals. Lymantria (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The motivation he filed for this proposal was "(Add your motivation for this property here.)". I think in general a person who proposes a new property should engage in more effort to justify why a new proposal is needed. I think this leads to people writing justifiably that GZWDer engages in spamming the page. ChristianKl (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Multi-purpose external ID properties

Should properties like Metacritic ID (P1712) be subdivided? It currently has uses like:

which suggests at least four sub-types. IMSLP ID (P839) has similar issues. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) has at least 50 possible sub-properties. @André Costa (WMSE): It is maybe better for the constraints to split it. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
... and IMDb ID (P345). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No - what's the purpose or benefit from subdividing? The same service is providing an identifier that is suitable for all these different types of entities, there aren't any overlaps. Seems like a needless multiplication of properties to split. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Well, one advantage would probably be that some of the Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260)-statements should always have RAÄ number (P1262) as a qualifier (those starting with "raa/fmi/") while others never should do that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
For such checks you can add a complex constraint [1]. No need to create 50 subproperties. Also for Metacritic ID (P1712) I can't see any advantage of splitting the property. --Pasleim (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The advantage of "one property to rule them all" is that P1260 is continuously extended to include more and more museums and other collections. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: With respect to Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) I've considered whether it might be worth splitting myself. The two main benefits IMHO are better constraint checking and easier sparql use (i.e. its way easier to ask "if Q<id> has P<id>" than if Q<id> has P<id> and the value starts with <string>"). That said other than the main raa entries it's unclear which of the other subdivisions of Swedish Open Cultural Heritage URI (P1260) would warrant their own properties. It is also worth noting that new properties (for external properties) more often seem to favour splitting (as far as I've observed). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Another example is Rotten Tomatoes ID (P1258). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Question items

What do you think of it? What would be a good way to structure these items?
--- Jura 06:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I know the reason why, but "Who painted Q750058?" looks simply great :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't believe the effort it took us to have QID match the name of the painting ;) --- Jura
For this sample, we should display the title property, not the item label
--- Jura 06:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
We shouldn't. Your previous proposal of a similar vein was disagreed with and this adds little value to that proposal. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
We probably should and we generally find this most interesting. I'd be interested in an explanation for your disagreeing view.
--- Jura 17:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think question items are a good idea. To begin with, because they are not data. Perhaps a question-wiki should be started. Lymantria (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
What definition do you use for data that it doesn't match? It's similar to queries for which we have a namespace. We could link pages to such items.
--- Jura 06:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
A question in itself is not data, the answer may or may not be found in data. It would be a serious mistake to treat questions as if they themselves belong to the database. From another angle: What are boundaries of question items? Each claim of any item bears the answer to a question.... You'd have to define what are notable questions and what are not. That seems beyond the scope of wikidata. Good questions are interesting however, my remark on a question wiki was not a joke.
And about queries, they are not items. Good thing. Lymantria (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I think queries are meant to be entities, not items. At least, that's why there is a separate namespace for them. (Not that it currently works).
I agree that we'd need to define what type of questions we'd want. Similar to queries and lists.
--- Jura 06:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
A question in itself is not data => This is a highly questionable claim. Anything stored is data. Plus, it can be used to define the properties some properties of the datas, the properties themselves are datas. For example, in an OWL ontology, class expressions are just part of the ontology on almost the same level of over datas and can themselves be queried, if I'm not wrong. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Check digit

Many of the IDs we use (ISNI, ISBN etc) have check digits. As the number of Wikidata items grows massively, with more and more people using our IDs in their systems, will we suffer from not having a check digit in our IDs? Should we give thought to using one, before it's to late? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

+1 Ping @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 21:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure how that would look like in practice. Do you already have an idea? Is it actually a problem somewhere right now? If so what is the issue exactly? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Laddo: This is a good way to reinforce the quality of WD data. As example for CAS Registry Number (P231), we have that check rule. To implement that check we can use 2 ways:
  • Create a new constraint model
  • Implement in the Wikibase software some in-house constraint checks which prevent the saving of a value which is not respecting the check rule
But according to the development plan, this is not planned.
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) By the way, can you give us some details about the future of constraints reports ? Should this kind of quality control included in the WD core or not ? I am a little afraid that relying on external bots will lead to broken tools in the future when the bot operators will stop performing those tasks. We should have at least several bots with the same code doing those actions is order to be sure that even if one bot operators leave the community we still have someone who can continue the job. In WP communities we have plenty of examples where the tools are broken without any possibility to use them again because nobody knows the code and is ready to take that responsibility to run them. Snipre (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Sorry I didn't understand correctly the remark Snipre (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett. Too late unless we create a new format to number our items. You can't add a check digit when the main part of the ID is random. Snipre (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I'm suggesting we put effort into evaluating whether or not we should deal with this before it becomes a problem, just as ISNI etc must have thought it would be. I appreciate it would be a nightmare to do; but perhaps (probably?) less of a nightmare than being forced to so it later. The simplest way might be to append a checkdigit, so Q12345 would become Q12345-n (where "n" is the check digit). Or to append check letters (A for 1, through H for 8, J for 9 (avoiding "I" because it looks like "1") , X for 10), like Q12345X. Another alternative would be to renumber everything, so Q12345 would become Q12345n, but then you'd need to deal with conflicts. Ouch! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't see the need for this. I've worked with identifier systems with and without check digits; there are only two purposes served by check digits: (1) when you expect a considerable amount of data entry to be done by hand (for example with credit card numbers entered by hand on websites etc.) then the check digit serves as a way to limit (but not eliminate) transcription errors, and (2) when you want to make it harder for people to guess a valid identifier (but if the algorithm is known that is hardly a big stumbling block). The downside of check digits is they make the identifier longer. None of these considerations matter for systems that look up and share identifiers digitally. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Highest Point Property:P610 consistency

Looking at Finland Q33 I find the highest point being the mountain Halti at coordinates 69°18'28.888"N, 21°15'53.954"E. Now Halti Q216035 is reporting its coordinates at 69°18'46"N, 21°17'8"E. Interestingly, Halti has its own "highest point" at 69°19'23"N, 21°16'44"E, which lies in Norway (because the mountain happens to be on the border), and has its own data item, Ráisduattarháldi Q10658379 with coordinates 69°19'22"N, 21°16'44"E. This is rather confusing. --Krukrus (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is that kind of information listed there as qualifiers anyway. Everything should be in the linked item. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The problem here is that the highest point of Finland is located at Halti (Q216035), but the highest point of that mountain is located in Norway. The highest point in Finland is therefor located at the slope of that mountain. That may solve itself in the near future, since it has been proposed to the Norwegian Government that the mountain should be given to Finland as birthday present when Finland becomes 100 years. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Strange history of Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504) – what to do?

Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504) was originally about the Ukrainian cyclist Sergiy Lagkuti, who is now described by Q18201813. The item in question, Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504), now describes the 2015 edition of a French cycling race (Item history). What to do in such cases? Delete the item and create a new one for the cycling race? Or let everything as it is (apart from the “old” de-label+description)? —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the mess and reverted to the original. The Ukrainian cyclist is now on Sergiy Lagkuti (Q1432504), and the cycling race on Q26208714. --Stryn (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

One or more property examples?

The question whether we should use preferably one property example or preferably some examples is discussed at Property talk:P1855. Please share your opinions. Lymantria (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion really needs input from other people than Lymantria, Pigsonthewing and myself. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the issue is a bit too "meta". I could not tell in easy words what the property is about -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

What about the extensive (mis)use at ethnic group (P172)? --Succu (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because there can be an excessive number of examples doesn't mean that the maximum should always be 1. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Grant for Lua module

I have created the application for grant for improving Lua module that makes it easy to use Wikidata in Wikipedias. Please comment. —putnik 06:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does "N⁰ of injured" always add "±1"?

That's really very annoying, trying to enter the correct number of injured, but the entry permanently keeps adding "±1" to the number when I click save - but I didn't enter it! >:(( Q25980145. --SI 21:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This is phab:T115269 and related tasks, possibly the most annoying bug with Wikidata currently. The software is guessing that the precision of the entered value is ±1 unit (which is more often wrong than not). When you are entering exact values you need to enter the value followed by +-0 (or ±0) to tell the software that the uncertainty of this value is 0. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
We're currently working on a fix for that one and related issues. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Thx for your answers, I already had found it myself, just was too annoyed & busy to report here. Strange & funny effect: when you enter the number with (x) decimal digits, the ± reduces to ±0.(x)1. Da sag nochmal einer, Wikidata-Software hätte keinen Humor ;) --SI 22:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Which is often the correct behaviour, though. If you say the height of a person is 1.75cm, then you usually do mean 1.75±0.01cm, no? --Denny (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, you might mean equally mean 1.75±0.00m, 1.75±0.01m, 1.75±0.005m, 1.75±0.05m, 1.75±0.1m or 1.75±0.25m depending on the precision of your measurement. 1.75±0.005m and 1.75±0.01m are probably equally likely for people in every day usage but all are possible depending on the usecase and if a source doesn't say, you don't know what accuracy was used to measure. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

employment by economic sector (P2297)

I became the first to add employment by economic sector (P2297) (created 13 Nov 2015) to an item (Amsterdam (Q9899)) today. I think that is due to the property having imperfections. The definition "employment by economic sector" suggests there would be a mandatory qualifier - I used field of work (P101). Apart from difficulty in matching sectors, I think it is a bit weird that the total employment is not given anywhere. Now we may just delete this property, as the proposer of it suggests at the talk page. Perhaps it is better, as the property wasn't used until today, to change the description into "employment", without "by economic sector". The economic sector may be added by qualifiers as I did. What do you think? Best regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Possibly, industry (P452) would be more suitable as a qualifier, if the property is to be kept. This area can be a bit problematic, unless all of the data for all countries conforms to the same exact same standard, we end-up comparing apples with oranges. For example, different countries have different methods for calculating their unemployment rate. Danrok (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, while industry is one of the sectors, I would not think of industry (P452). But indeed, this sector thing is a complete mess. But simple employment numbers (less difficult than unemployment numbers!) without sectors would be interesting, I think. Lymantria (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WQS query expired

Using the 'HarvestTemplates' tool. I'm getting a "WQS query expired" error. What does that mean, and can I do anything to remedy it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide the permalink for your job? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Where would I find that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot that it's only shown when you have already some pages loaded. To work around this, could you just load a random job and then add the correct input? After that, the permalink is located just above the pages to run the job on. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The job:

just gave me that error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Loaded for me (148 pages), even the same query as HT runs. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
But not for me (I've tried using an alternative account, too); and the latter query just hangs. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Rfd links template

{{Rfd links}} would be greatly improved if it displayed the label of the item or property under discussion (see its use in most sections of Wikidata:Properties for deletion, for example). I requested this on its talk page some time ago, but no-one has responded, Can anyone oblige, please? It's beyond my template skills to do this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I endorse this request and was thinking something very similar after my faux pas the other day at properties for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If having labels in the headers of that page is what you want to achieve, shouldn't we rather modify the gadget? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I modified the template to show labels of properties (and furthermore, added some i18n love), not items because I am afraid that it would produce red error message on long archived Rfd's. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. For properties, that's just what's needed; Wikidata:Properties for deletion is much easier to follow. However, there is still a lack of clarity on Wikidata:Requests for deletions. I'd be less worried about archived RfDs, but you could always make it not show a label, or show the string "[item deleted]" in such cases. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

importing data on journalists killed in the exercise of their profession

Hi all

UNESCO produces a report of journalists killed 'in the exercise of their profession', what would be the best way of expressing this within their Wikidata items? There is information on the year and the country of their death, their nationalities and a link to a statement by UNESCO on their deaths (this often because they have been murdered).

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@John Cummings: The solution to this will probably be wider than just for journalists: consider police killed 'in the exercise of their profession', or teachers, ditto. I've created an item, killed in the exercise of their profession (Q26216011); apply that as a value for cause of death (P509) manner of death (P1196). I've done that on Veronica Guerin (Q237541), for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much Andy, do you know how I would add links to the UNESCO statements about their deaths? Here's an example. John Cummings (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Correction: Apply as manner of death (P1196). For links to statements, use them as refs or qualify with described at URL (P973). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to mention it: killed in the exercise of their profession (Q26216011) includes all mercenary (Q178197). --Succu (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Only those who were killed in action. Not those who died of natural causes, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure but died Pierre Curie (Q37463) while he was thinking about something related to his profession? Such statements need a source and a clear circumscription. --Succu (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed the original post in this section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm referring to this edit and your creation of killed in the exercise of their profession (Q26216011). How knows? --Succu (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much Andy, I think described at URL (P973) would work well, I'll set up a spreadsheet for Mix n' Match. --John Cummings (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: didn't you meant reference URL (P854) instead of described at URL (P973)? --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I wrote "use them as refs or qualify with described at URL (P973)"; and that's what I meant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Wikiversity has Schools such as v:School:Chemistry. How should these be entered here?

For example, here there is 'School of Chemistry, University of Manchester (Q18355971)'. Based on this I could create a new item: 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity (Qmanydigits)' for which we would have nine language versions here. Or I could duplicate the Wikiversity version here as 'School:Chemistry (Qmanydigits)'. Suggestions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Marshallsumter: That Wikiversity page is currently linked to chemistry (Q2329). The Wikiversity page v:Chemistry is an orphan item at Q25931548. I would have expected that to be the other away around, and for main subject (P921) to be involved. I've also just created Q26215754, which can be used as the value of instance of (P31) for such schools. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I've solved part of this. I changed Q25931548 to be 'Template:Chemistry resources', then put v:Chemistry with chemistry (Q2329). We also have here, e.g., 'School of Psychology, University of Glasgow' which also suggests 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity'. --Marshallsumter (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Marshallsumter: That's not good. Please don't re-purpose items, as you did at Q25931548. I've now merged that with Q2329. please create a new item for the template. And that still leaves you with no item for v:School:Chemistry. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Sorry about Q25931548, we actually may not have anything for this, but I like your idea with it! Do you have an opinion on either 'School of Chemistry, Wikiversity' or 'School:Chemistry' with the nine Wikiversity versions? --Marshallsumter (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

World University and School plans 7,943+ wiki schools in each of all languages, and 204+universities in the main languages of all countries

Per these communications with Lydia from around July 10th - - where she asked us if World University and School had a candidate to develop WUaS in Wikidata - and August 5th - I'd be very interested in communicating further with you, Wikidatans, please about developing the (donated to Wikidata) CC World University and School in CC Wikidata anticipating student applicants beginning this September (as if applying to MIT or Stanford, for example, and first in English, but anticipating all ~204 countries' main languages for online university degrees - Bachelor B.S./B.A., Ph.D. law, M.D. and I.B. high school diplomas. This would also include beginning to develop CC MIT OCW already in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC in Wikidata as courses for credit at WUaS, and as a kind of course catalog, both of which WUaS has begun. In what ways could we please plan to get this course catalog and student application process up and running in Wikidata by September 1 for potential student applicants (again as if applying to MIT or Stanford), to matriculate in autumn 2017 first for free CC BS/BA degrees? The WUaS project is partly about creating online CC wiki Harvards of the Internet in every countries' main language, accrediting on CC MIT OCW and CC Yale OYC.

Suggestions? --Scott_WorldUnivAndSch (talk) 5:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this daft? is busy adding "area occupied" claims to items such as cities in square meters, instead of the usual, sensible, square kilometer or mile. Danrok (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This is now under discussion, at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#‎Should this bot be stopped?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Looks like the DuplicateReferences-Gadget have some problems? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

What problems? Some of them may already be tracked... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: I cannot copy-paste references today! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Didn't you forget that it's Thursday – the day when things break on Wikidata?
@Adrian Heine (WMDE), Jonas Kress (WMDE), Aude: Could you look at this (MediaWiki:Gadget-DuplicateReferences.js)? The problem is that saving an already copied reference does not work. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There are only seven such days in the week, so they are hard to miss!   -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a very useful gadget. Why is having so many problems? Xaris333 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Because it is a gadget. Although gadgets are considered the most stable among optional scripts, still they are not part of the software and may fail on any change of it. In particular, this gadget is hacking the UI which changes really often. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it is fixed for now. Many thanks, whoever did it! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Copy reference tool

The copy reference tool is not working. Xaris333 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

See #DuplicateReferences above! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Qualifiers for bounds, empirical values, and regulated values

Consider a class of physical entities with a Wikidata item. The entity class has properties minimum mass, which is regulated by some set of rules, and typical length, which is not regulated, but there is good knowledge about empirical values which furthermore do not vary much.

It would be easy to use mass (P2067) (±0) and length (P2043) (± range of empirical values) now, but how to qualify the restrictions given above? Usage of qualifiers would be great to my knowledge, but I have no idea how to say that …

  1. … the mass is actually a lower bound
  2. … the length is an empirical value
  3. … the former is regulated (by whom?), while the latter is explicitly not regulated

Any ideas? Thanks in advance! —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful, but we have uncertainty corresponds to (P2571) as a qualifier that was intended to describe the uncertainty bounds on a quantity value. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but this does not seem to fit here. For the lower bound I meanwhile thought of a qualifier P794 (P794) Q21067468. Would that be okay? For the other two problems I have no clue what to do, so I would welcome more ideas here… —MisterSynergy (talk)

Q18201640 and Property:P402: linking to OSM

I tried to fix a bad OSM link, the number actually was the monument's node id, not a relation id. As Wikidata only supports OSM relations to link to, I created a OSM relation containing only the monument. This was (understandably) not appreciated. So, I see no way of linking the Wikipedia monument to OSM. --Krukrus (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned in the changeset discussion, the proper solution is to add a wikidata=* tag to the OSM node. —seav (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I got that. But that recommended solution makes Property:P402 rather obsolete. I'm counting roughly 20.000 wikidata items using P402, so this is actually not a big issue, but I assume it should be tackled not to let others fall in the same trap wanting to link to OSM rather than from. --Krukrus (talk) 13:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
See Property talk:P402#Deletion request and the discussions to which it links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Country Index

There is data such as the Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparncy international or the Good Country Index that would be valuable to integrate as data into Wikidata. On the other hand it seems to me like it wouldn't be good to create a new property for every index that exists and list that property at the item of the respective countries. How do you think Wikidat should deal with information like this?

The same goes for various laws like that differ per country like the age of consent. There are many laws that could be listed and maybe a property isn't the best way to go as that would make the pages of the respective countries very long. ChristianKl (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I think continuously updated properties are probably the largest threat when it comes to the length (or rather size) of pages. I proposed in the early days of Wikidata that we could put such data in special designed sub-items to the main items. When it comes to exchange rates for currencies, that is maybe already implemented. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Wikidata!

Hi folks!

My name is Glorian Yapinus, but you can simply call me Glorian ;) . For the next 6 months, I will assist Lydia in supporting you all. Regarding to my educational background, I hold a bachelor's degree in Information Technology and currently, I am working on my Master's in Software Engineering and Management.

I am a warm and nice person. So, please do not hesitate to reach out to me for any queries. Last but not least, I am looking forward to working with you.

Cheers, --Glorian Yapinus (WMDE) (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Welcome! Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to wikidata, I'm glad Lydia has some help!! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Suitable instance for pages like w:Icarius

Frequently I come across pages like w:Icarius at enwiki with two or more people described in detail. These seem to be fairly frequent to describe people in the field.

Some of these pages are linked to disambiguation items, others from list items, some as groups of people. This one is linked from a given name item.

As the content goes beyond a mere disambiguation page, what should we use to link them? List items might be the most suitable.

(Not important for this question, but, obviously, each entry in such lists should get an item of its own. Here Q608800 and Q1658054, maybe Q34041)
--- Jura 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have an adequate item for those pages yet. It should probably be something like 'Wikimedia items grouping page'. And it should follow the Bonnie and Clyde principles. --Melderick (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at that page, personally I think it could be seen as a page that groups information from various Wikidata items. Couldn't that be said about most lists?
--- Jura 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a continuum between pure disambigs, lists, dislocated Wiktionary content and etymology in Wikipedia. Icarius could probably be treated as ´Lemek in the Bible where the P40 and P22-statements should be removed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think items such as Q15618652 are the right classes because the group itself only exists in Wikimedia (well as far as the Bible is saying about them ofc). I would expect a Wikipedia page about an instance of Q15618652 to talk about what the group did together, what they share. I agree with Jura that Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is probably the closest existing class. --Melderick (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That page for w:Icarius is a disambiguation page. There is much more to be said about either Icarius but this page just stubs them both up and bundles them together. So this is not a list of two, but just a regular Wikipedia disambiguation page, which has part Icarius of Sparta (Q1658054) and has part Icarius of Athens (Q608800) (so you can only link this item to other language WIkipedia disambiguation pages for Icarius). Jane023 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't see it as a disambiguation page and I don't think that much content is allowed on enwiki disambiguation pages.
--- Jura 17:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't see it as a quality article either. It is very stubby and discusses two concepts. It would be incorrect to choose the first one to link to the Q number so I think it should just be labelled a disambig. If it were me, I might improve the article about the first one, and then you could link it to the first item, but in my opinion they both are too shoddy to warrant an interwikilink right now. Jane023 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a major concern for many many articles about Greek mythology both in and (the template on is en:Template:Greek myth index: 203 results on Petscan; unfortunately there isn't anything similar on I agree about using instance of (P31) Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) and I want to report that in the past I saw instance of (P31) Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) was used very often for items like these (118 results on Petscan for, 50 results on Petscan for, 130 results merging them). Finally, in my opinion the best solution is working in the native Wikipedias splitting these artificial lists into stubs and turning them into regular disambiguation pages. --Epìdosis 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course. We haven't yet attracted anyone willing to go fix these articles. Maybe they are all playing Pokemon Go. It doesn't matter as long as you believe it will happen one day. I have been around long enough to see improvements happen in various areas and I have no reason to believe it won't happen in this corner of the Wikiverse. Meanwhile, all of Greek mythology can be modelled to your heart's content here on Wikidata because we have tons of items about artworks that can link to them. Maybe once that is done it may interest people to write about them. Jane023 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023: I agree and I can confirm that slow but significant improvements, here and on about ancient Greece. In the meaning time we have to uniformate instance of (P31) for all this items: is it OK for instance of (P31) Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes I don't see the difference really. When I think of a list I think of 10 items or more and less than that I think it is more of a disambiguation page, but the concept is the same: it's a page that cannot be linked to a specific item and will probably always exist in some form or another. Jane023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And what do you (@Melderick, Jura1, Innocent bystander:) think about instance of (P31) Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 13:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, any list is probably "a group of something" so I guess both ways works. That said could probably also be said the other way around. The only problem here is maybe that it is maybe not so easy to semanticly define a "list of persons in Greece mythology with the name Icarius", since these kinds of persons can have different names in different languages. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Taking into account how such a page could evolve in the future, I agree with Jane023 that it is more likely to become a disambiguation page than a list. Somehow a Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is supposed to have a topic (is a list of (P360) <topic item>) : not possible here. So I changed my mind and my vote goes to instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) if we have to choose between those 2. --Melderick (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@Melderick: OK, I understand your opinion and I personally hope these items will become "normal" disambiguation pages. However, in the meaning time wouldn't it be useful to distinguish in some way these items from "normal" disambiguation pages? For example, we may use instance of (P31) Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) + from fictional universe (P1080) Greek mythology (Q34726). --Epìdosis 17:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
@Epìdosis: It's easy to distinguish them : they will have links to and from the separate items, while "normal" disambiguation items don't. --Melderick (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
In my opinion Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) is always a non-content-page with links to other pages with content. The only information in such pages, is to separate the different topics. I would therefor   Oppose calling this kind of page a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) or a subclass thereof. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. I don't think it's a good idea to handle content pages at wikis like disambiguation pages just because we think that they might eventually become a disambiguation page (or be replaced by one) or our editorial opinion tells us they should be doing it differently. While it might look like a quick fix to change w:Icarius into a disambiguation page, it's by far not the only such page and some of these include 10+ characters. If we manage to identify these and create missing items, maybe we make it easier for Wikipedia to adopt a more Wikidata-like structure.
    --- Jura 13:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1, Innocent bystander: Ok. So let's make a new class for these items. I think we all agree that what is important is the need to create one item for each topic. The class of the item having all the wikilinks is a minor issue. --Melderick (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Then as a subclass of a list or "group of persons". As I said, this is not a subclass of a disambig, since it has "content". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it can be a subclass of list either (no is a list of (P360) <topic>). Maybe a sister-class to disambig and list ? I don't know that part of the class-hierarchy. --Melderick (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not fully understand why we cannot use "instance of:group of persons"? I recently created a "group of settlements"-item. (See the discussion in this page now.) The articles affected by this groups two or more villages together and present them in one Wikipedia article. This is very Wikimedia-centric, since nobody else group these villages together. They normally are located close to each other and have names that relates them to each other (Söderby East and Söderby Northwest for example.) in other cases, the connection is even less obvious. Icarius 1 and 2 are maybe not a typical Bonnie and Clyde-couple, but they are nevertheless grouped together by at least one user on Wikipedia. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Well any notions of group of persons is used only when all those persons met, made a group and did things together. See instances of group of mythical characters (Q20830276) or duo (Q10648343). --Melderick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
But what prevents us from creating a "group of persons who never met"-item and classify Icarius as such? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's have a look at Meliboea (Q1919352) : in polish, it's clearly a disambig page with a few links. But in finnish, it's the same grouping as for Icarius. So are we supposed to have a different item for finnish (and lose the wikilink) ? Personnaly I don't think so. The english version is also interesting. It seems the non-content-page policy for disambig is way too strict especially with so many wikipedia. In the case of mythological characters, there is often not too much to say about many of them, not enough to make them notables enough to have their own page on many wikipedia. But on other wikipedia, with a different notability policy, they get a few lines page. What do you think of instance of Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) ? --Melderick (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Now, you are mixing up two concepts! Sharing Interwiki is one of the consequences of sharing item here at Wikidata, but that is not the only way to have Interwiki! sv:Arom is a disambig-page on svwiki. That article is alone in its item, but by the help of a template, it still has interwiki. Old style interwiki ([[xy:Whatever]]) still works and can be used.
"Set index" is of course an option. I am not so very well-informed about how it is used. It looks like a disambig-list-hybrid to me. And I guess our page maybe could be described as such. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, that it looks like set index page (or topic disambig, how I'd call it). --Infovarius (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Class of

Group versus class : a class is a set of instances who shares some property. For example we could define a class "person named Barrack", and "Barrack Obama" would be an instance of it. Not that we absolutely have to put an instance of (P31) statement in the Obama's item, but conceptually it would be. A group of person is more like a social groups who are linked to each over socially or shares the membership to some organisation for instance. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

+1. It can be called a class. --Infovarius (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
+1 for class. --Epìdosis 11:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

So, is instance of (P31) set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208) OK? --Epìdosis 08:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC) @Innocent bystander, Jane023, Jura1, Melderick:. --Epìdosis 14:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Would like to also hear @TomT0m: opinion about the naming (Not sure it was what he meant). As for set of mythological Greek characters (Q26214208) itself, you will need to add a "subclass of" claim to it (maybe subclass of (P279) Wikimedia set index article (Q15623926) ?). --Melderick (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Another problem: in some cases not all the thing contained in the "set index" article are characters (i.e. Macistus (Q6724148)). --Epìdosis 11:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam, or not

It's hard to tell whether these items are significant, or not:

(all edited by the same accounts). I'm concerned that listing them at Wikidata:Requests for deletions may see them speedily deleted, with no time for proper discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

  • IndraStra Global (Q22917772) shows up about 10 times on Wikipedia as a source, with some questions of whether it is a reliable source. Following through on one page on WP that used an IndraStra article - the article was a copy of a paper published elsewhere (it was attributed, but seemed to be a straight copy). No details on website of ownership/location/staff etc - SPAM
  • Amrita Jash (Q26203844) - seems to be like an attempt to create a web presence and two of the identifiers are fake. SPAM - and says that she is the Editor-in-Chief, IndraStra Global, so spam for that as well!
  • Eurasia Review (Q22918113) - ~1,700 hits on WP as a source. Site lists location and ownership (Buzz Future LLC), shows authorship of articles and affiliated organisations, seems to have been around a few years, and is discussed elsewhere as an entity in its own right here - not spam  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robevans123 (talk • contribs) at 18:56, 2 ago 2016‎ (UTC).
A useful analysis, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems there's currently a plan to have all sources on Wikidata and Wikipedia in Wikidata. That means that it's useful to have items for authors of scientific papers. The INSI number isn't fake but wrongly formatted. The creator of the entry put "-" between the number blocks instead of " ". The Google Scholar ID was also wrongly formatted. Apart from that the ID's are properly sourced and therefore fulfill the criteria of the Wikidata item being based on authoritative sources. ChristianKl (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Cool - I retract my judgement of spam on Amrita Jash (Q26203844)! Still not convinced by IndraStra Global (Q22917772) - seems to be a place for Amrita Jash (Q26203844) to publish their articles that are not published elsewhere, alongside other articles that are available elsewhere. @ChristianKl: - where is the plan "to have all sources on Wikidata and Wikipedia in Wikidata" being discussed? Sounds really very useful. Would like to find out more about it. Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC) is the grant to develop this future. In the achieve of last months project chat ( there's a discussion. There's also WikiCite ( In general I believe that everything that has a INSI number is notable enough for it to have a Wikidata item. ChristianKl (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
So is the argument that anyone with an ISNI should have an item? And/ or anyone with a Google Scholar ID? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Having looked again at Amrita Jash (Q26203844), and in a bit more depth at ISNI and Google Scholar ID, I think I'm going to change mind mind yet again! At ISNI Amrita Jash (Q26203844) has one article attributed as author (its an M Phil dissertation and/or (it is unclear) a conference paper). In either guise is doesn't seem to be cited elsewhere. ISNI is basically a unique identifier to avoid ambiguity based on a number of other identifiers. If you're somewhere on a database of "contributors to creative works and those active in their distribution, including researchers, inventors, writers, artists, visual creators, performers, producers, publishers, aggregators, and more" you'll get an ISN. There are currently ~ 9 million entries. Without getting a list of all contributory databases and checking them all for notability I don't think we should confer notability based on having an ISN (although at least some of the contributory databases may well confer notability).
Looking at Google Scholar ID - it would appear that it is something that you create for yourself (provided you have an email address at an educational establishment). Not having a such an email address I couldn't go much further to find out what other constraints apply (I'm guessing its self-regulating in that any scholar who claims papers they haven't written will be shot down in flames fairly quickly). In itself a Google Scholar ID (IMO) should not confer notability, although some of the metrics shown might be used to assess notability. In an article (Why every scientist should make his Google Scholar profile public) about the Google Scholar ID I found this example which could be enough to make the person notable for Wikidata.
So, I'd now regard Amrita Jash (Q26203844) as spam (and I suspect the item might be self-published).
It strikes me that it may well be useful to assess external identifiers on criteria of completeness, accuracy, usefulness, verifiability, and indication of notability. For example, a National Heritage List for England number (P1216) should be enough to confer notability, it could (potentially) be complete in that there is list of all scheduled monuments etc in England, it is useful as a source of info, and should be pretty accurate. Allowing for the fact that no database is perfect I'd rate it as 99% on all counts. As for Google Scholar ID, I'd rate it as 99% for usefulness, 99% for verifiability, unknown (maybe < 20%) for completeness, 90% for accuracy, and variable (0-99%) for notability. Robevans123 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Our notability criteria are about whether a person can be described by serious publically available sources. INSI and OrcID are a serious publically available sources. Having a database that links an INSI number to a OrcId number is useful. If someone cites a source via ProveIt it's valuable for them to be able to look up information about the author. The OrcID that can tell us where a person is employed can be useful for finding conlicts of interest. ChristianKl (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as Wikimedian in Residence at ORCID, I don't think an ORCID iD alone confers notability; anyone can set one up for themselves. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. And if you have an ORCID Id you get an ISNI Id (see this). Now Andy is notable in many ways -:) !, but just having an ORCID Id does not (on its own) make him notable. However, if an author is used in ProveIt then it would be fine to add an appropriate WD item for them (and include the INSI/ORCID ids if available). But saying an INSI Id on its own confers notability - then what would stop someone with a bot creating 9 million items on Wikidata? Robevans123 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
As a practical matter according to the rules bot should only do things when there a consensus that the actions of the bot are welcome. The data only becomes valuable if different kinds of data get linked together. That's not something if you simply take the existing database and upload it here. Sooner or later I however think that Wikidata could profit from including all the bibliograhic data out there as called for in (which was linked to weeks ago in the status report). I don't see the motivation for not integrating huge stacks of valuable data into Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't believe that we should treat items about people (or things) from India any differently to those from any other country. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hear hear! Robevans123 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Property proposals and consensus

My proposal for a SoundCloud ID property was posted on 22 July. No one else has commented, so there is one editor (me) in favour, and zero against. Since, in my book, that means there is consensus to create, I marked it as "ready" for creation. This has been reverted by User:Lymantria with the edit summary "not ready as having not gained any support".

Our policy on property creation says:

new properties should not be created without a proposal/discussion on Wikidata:Property proposal. Property creators should not create new properties unless consensus exists

It says nothing about requiring additional support.

There is prior discussion at User talk:Lymantria#Property creation (with a follow-up at #Property proposals needing comments, above, where we are assured that requiring additional comments is not proposed) and I am concerned that the false assertion I highlighted there may have had a chilling effect on the application of our policy; to that extent, Lymantria is a "piggy in the middle".

I seek confirmation that our policy as written requires only consensus, not anything beyond that, and that my understanding that the absence of objections equates to consensus is correct.

In the mean time, of course, comments on the proposal in this case, and others with no current comments, will be welcome - more editors commenting on proposals will always be a good thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think there is problems with our property proposal process, but I don't think trying to twist the letter words is a correct way to fix this. Either we gain concensus that the process is broken and we acknowledge we can play around the linets - but I don't think it's a good idea considering community really don't like arbitrary creations, or we fix it. For example, in your spirit, I proposed that a proposal that did not get any opposition should be created, instead of a proposal that had to gain support. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: In my opinion you cannot have consensus among one persons. If there has not been a discussion (yet), IMHO the proposal is not ready for creation. Especially in (summer) vacation time, we must be aware of the fact that possible discussion participants are offline. There's no hurry. Lymantria (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Piggy in the middle. You funny man. :)
    • @Lymantria: I'd interpret the fact that nobody has something to say as a sign of "tacit consensus". It would encourage initiative on Wikidata (after a certain amount of time) : if somebody is opposed because he's in favor of another way of doing the same thing, or he thinks this should not be done, he/she has to react. The person who tries something should be favored over the one who tacitely oppose. This seems a reasonable thing to do as we don't have a lot of comments on property proposals. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      Of course, the limit of this is with duplicate proposal to avoid someone to create an unwanted of previously rejected property just by repeatedly posting essentially the same proposal. There should be something new. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Lymantria: You may wish to read en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. All Wikimedia projects work on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: But read Wikidata:Property proposal or Help:Properties: "Before a new property is created, it has to be discussed here. When after some time there are some supporters, but no or very few opponents, the property is created by a property creator or an administrator." That is quite in line with my interpretation of consensus on a proposal. And that is not at all in conflict with en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus (while, other than you suggest, this is not the basis of all wikimedia projects, for instance nl:Wikipedia:Consensus has a different angle), while from the silence it is not clear whether the readers but not reactors prefer the status quo (no new property) or change (new property). So consensus on...?? Therefore input is a necessity. Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
        • +1 with Lymantria:
          1. WD is not WP:en. We can have different rules. Example: notability criteria.
          2. A property proposal has to be discussed. This means some comments. Without comment, it is impossible to considered that the discussion took place, so consensus can't be compared to no comment.
          3. Just have a look to the number of properties which are not used (currently 67, see Category:Unused properties) or used only once (currently 263, mainly used in the example case): 330 properties which are not used, representing 12% of the properties. This clearly indicates that the current systems is not working and produces unecessary stuff. Snipre (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Nobody has claimed this is en.Wikipedia, nor that we must have the same "rules". That's a straw man. Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy, quoted at the head of this section (its says "proposal/discussion", which is admittedly ambiguous). Unused properties are also a red herring. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
            • I don't think there is much ambiguous about "proposal/discussion". But even if there is, you can IMHO not derive from it that "Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy". I don't agree that unused properties are a red herring. I noticed it is annoying to quite a few people. What are we creating, maintaining, etc., properties for if they are not used? Why do I have to scroll through 3000+ property names to see if I can find what I want, if 10-20% is cruft? Okay, indeed, a couple of the unused properties above are qualifiers, but still, many properties are not or hardly used. And if they are used 2 or 3 times, still it is pretty useless. Recently I raised the number of uses of EU Transparency Register ID (P2657) from 1 to 11. Still I thought, what's the use of it? Proposer and supporter didn't care much, it seems. So, red herring? I think we have to look for a way to be sure that a property is used with some enthousiasm.
              BTW, Andy, I'm a bit fed up with your constant comments on other editors disqualifying their wordings in discussions. Even if they may have imperfections, we are not in a debating club here. There is no reason to bring forward your opinions as facts, while writing as if the other participants are dumb arses. I am quite aware of my lesser capabilities to express myself in your native language. If you want to continue to make it a contest like you do now, let's continue multilangual. But better, let's try to understand each other and see if we can come to some sort of agreement. Lymantria (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
              • "proposal/discussion" can be taken to mean "proposal and discussion". It can mean "proposal or discussion". It can even mean "proposal and/or discussion". This is not my opinion, but unequivocal fact. We refer to the existence of such potential alternative meanings as "ambiguity". That you or anyone else take one meaning, and I reasonably take another, or am unclear as to which is meant, is further evidence of that ambiguity. Given that ambiguity, in particular the second of my three examples, it is not correct to say that "discussion is required". Since the ambiguity I illustrate is in the policy, the claim that a discussion is required is not supported by that policy. Given that a property proposed and supported only by one person may be well used, and a property supported by several may be little used, the level of usage is a red herring in a discussion of what the current policy means. That you are "fed up" by having these issues pointed out by me is unfortunate, but does not negate them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                • I'm not fed up with your discussion ("issues pointed out"), but with your tone. Not all of your reactions appear very respectful to the people your reply to. (Most of this last one is an example of how it could be).
                  About the ambiguity, for me it is clear that "discussion" would not have been mentioned if it were not necessary. If only a proposal was needed, that would have been written down. And I cannot imagine a property proposal discussion without a proposal. But ok, it is ambiguous to you, so it can be ambiguous apparently. I said above I didn't see much ambiguity in it, and your explanation did of course not change that.
                  So you see ambiguity. Then "and" is one of the possibilities of what you can read in the policy. That's what you say, when you say there is ambiguity. Different interpretations are possible, right? That means that "discussion is required" is a possible reading of the policy. So I think your "Your claim that a discussion is required is not supported by the policy" is not correct.
                  Of course, you conclude from the ambiguity meta level you cannot conclude that discussion is required. But then, verso, you can not conclude from the policy that discussion is unnecessary either. I don't think that meta level is very helpful. Lymantria (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • "Different interpretations are possible, right?" Absolutely, that's the very definition of ambiguity. QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) @Lymantria: I strongly disagree. There is no magic that can tell you which property will or won't be used. You'll just lose datas with such thoughts and by making the life of volunteers harder. Plus a property might be not used a lot but still needed to model some rare cases. Then ... you'll be happy to have this. This will just restrict our modelling power. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                • ??? It's the cruft that is making the life of volunteers harder, as I explained. I agree that not all hardly used properties are cruft, your describe a way of use that isn't. But I propose nothing yet, apart from that I want to wait some more time than a week if there has not been any reaction to a proposal, as I expect that eventually at least one person apart from the proposer shares his or her opinion before I create a property - but even that is not really a proposal. It is hardly making lifes of volunteers harder. But still, I think that a lot of properties are frustratingly low used, and it would not ask much of anybody to think of what we can do to gain enthusiast participation. If you say that thinking "will just restrict our modelling power", I really don't understand that. Lymantria (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • @Lymantria: From my experience, having to wait a long time beetween a proposal and its creation is an enthusiasm killer, really. Especially if you feel alone on your interest. My position is to trust the proposer : either we have something to do like "this property is redundant, just do like this / this clearly breaks WMF policies / whatever", so that he can work on whatever he want, or we let him work on what he want to work on. But there should be a reward for the one who takes initiative, that's what bring enthousiasm. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                    • @TomT0m: I am well aware that a long waiting time is a enthusiasm killer. That's why I stepped into property creation a couple of months ago in the first place. But IMHO that shouldn't mean that we create properties without any actual discussion. Lymantria (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                      • @Lymantria: I don't want to suppress discussion realy, I just want to reverse, in some way the charge of the effort to community. Proposer deserves an answer, and it's to community to make the effort to comment. On the same spirit, in france, I think there is now a rule that if you get no answer from administration after a request, then it defaults to "your request is accepted". And indeed, community should make the effort to review and not passively reject (of course, with arguments, just a "no" is not enough and is not a real review). author  TomT0m / talk page 08:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
        • [ec] The former is not a policy page. The latter is headed "This page is a work in progress, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.". I'd be most surprised to learn that nl.Wikipedia requires each edit to be discussed before it is made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
          • Talking about straw men... I'd be very surprised if at enwiki consensus checks - e.g. votes, proposals - would never have a quorum. Lymantria (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Yes, that is indeed a straw man, because that's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
              • I meant of course you were strawmenning yourself. Lymantria (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                • Then you are wrong, because that's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
                  • What you said about nlwiki was a straw man as well. Minutes later you accused another user of using a straw man. Lymantria (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • As noted above, I have created Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed to track (hopefully in future with the aid of a bot) those proposals that need more input. Hopefully this will reduce the instances of cases like this where there is little reaction. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think this will work. We will have the same pool of commenters who have probably not commented because they are not interested. Then maybe some will get up and vote, but how relevant and motivated can be the opinion of someone who is not interested ? This will help the proposer or left him frustrated ? author  TomT0m / talk page 16:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      • It may or may not, but I don't think that there will be any harm in trying it. I commented on a few while I was compiling the list for example. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I still approve this as I think this is useful ;) I just don't think it's a game changer. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just as a heads-up jura1 has created adjacent building (P3032) when the proposal had no comment by anyone other than the nominator exactly 1 week after being proposed (when there are plenty of far older properties that are marked ready with explicit support still waiting). I was actually just about to respond to querying the benefit of the proposal over something more generic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Modeling types

Hello. Could you, please, explain me, or better give a link to help page, what is (if at all) the functionality of Wikidata modeling? For example, a, is instance of some b, which is a subclass of some another c. Does it mean that properties of c are inherited to b? Does it mean that a has values of fields that are defined in b? Or all of these are just symbols for classification, with no semantics? Thank you, IKhitron (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure - see Help:Modelling and Help:Basic Membership Properties for starters. These are not however official policies, and still under development. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@IKhitron: I would not overestimate the meaning of subclass of (P279) and instance of (P31). Wikidata is no formal ontology based on strict logic but a set of diverse statements. The Wikidata hierarchy of classes and instances will always be fuzzy to some degree , just like reality! Have a look at my command line tool wikidata-taxonomy to extract existing hierarchies from Wikidata for judgement. -- JakobVoss (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both very much for your answer, it was very helpful. Now I can see the answer is absolutely no. Also, I saw a very wierd claim in your links, "class can't be an instance", which is a) wrong b) opposite to real situation in wikidata where a is an instance of b, b is a subclass of c, c is an instance of d, d is a subclass of e. So, all the system comes for better classification indeed and does not have any strict reasoning rules or executable constraints. Thanks a lot again, IKhitron (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Rio Olympics opening ceremony

Here is a thematic query with size of all teams and flag bearers tonight. Not all countries have been set with flagbearer yet, though... --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC) +sorted. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 12:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Very nice. Now let's wait for the guys to earn medals... Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Uploading MP3 files API

Could you please tell me the 'function' which I can use to add a functionality to upload an MP3 on WikiData (assuming I have already logged in).. I need to link it with one of my android applications I am working on.

Example: inbuilt function could be like: UploadData("MY_LOCAL_MACHINE_LINK.mp3");

Thanks a lot in Advance! :)  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 6 aug 2016 09:57 (UTC).

You can't. Files aren't hosted on Wikidata itself. All media files are stored on Wikimedia Commons. Mbch331 (talk) 08:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
MP3 wouldn't be accepted.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone created a version of "Cite book" that allows easy call of data?

I am wondering whether anyone has done the legwork so that things like {{cite book}} can be automatically populated with available data from WD?  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not a version of {{cite book}}, but sv:Modul:Cite can handle many kinds of references at svwiki. It cannot yet separate books from other kinds of references. In sv:Carl Gustav Jung are all six notes based on Wikidata and this module. The module is based on the module with the same name here at Wikidata, but large parts are replaced. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

VIAF synonyms

I may have asked before: When we find multiple entries of VIAF identifiers, we add them all? That way the VIAF people can one day use our database to merge them. The w:template:authority_control appears to just take the first value. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Not all the Template:Authority control (Q3907614) are the same, every wiki have developed a personal template. Some wiki can manage more value, other wiki no, so the fix must implemented on your wiki. --ValterVB (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
[ec] Yes, add them all. Mark one as "preferred" if it seems to have more detail on the VIAF website. VIAF will check and merge them, keeping deprecated values as redirects. If you find a value that is already redirected, add it and mark it as "deprecated" here. This way, someone whose data includes an old or secondary ID will still find the equivalent Wikidata item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for 'Welcome-anon' template

What's the best way to fork, or adapt, {{Welcome}}, for use with IP editors? I have something like species:Template:Welcome-anon in mind. Can we make the template detect whether it is on an account, or IP, user page, and display text based on that? I'm also mindful that it's sensible to reduce the repetition of text, which needs to be translated into many languages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

New gadget CoordinateDiffMap now available

We welcome a new addition to our collection of gadgets: CoordinateDiffMap. This gadget makes use of the new map technology that was deployed some time ago. It shows a map while viewing diffs that involve coordinates, so you can review them quickly.

If you encountered bugs while using this gadget, please leave a task on Phabrictor in our Wikidata-Gadgets project. You can also leave suggestions for new gadgets or report bugs for other gadgets!

Oh, and if there is enough demand we can also choose to enable this as default. But that is all to the community.

Thanks, Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you. In case anyone wants to see it in use (after activating the gadget), here's an example diff where coordinates are added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd love this to be set to default! Thanks for the great work. --Denny (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Btw, is there a gadget to add this to the item view as well? --Denny (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Not yet, maybe in the future! Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Huggle Warning Templates

On most wikis, there are templates made for Huggle users for warning people, such as the English Wikipedia. However, they are missing here. When I warned a user Here about their vandalisim Here, it showed up as {{subst:huggle/warn-1|1=Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard|2=}} instead of a substituted template. I went and did some looking, and discovered that pages such as huggle/warn-1 aren't existed here. Could you please import them, as it makes the warning part of Huggle work. PokestarFan (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how Huggle works but couldn't we still use our dedicated templates by changing the configuration? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


Could someone manually archive this page or get a bot to do it? It causes an heavy load on my browser when this page loads up and also is just annoying when you are looking for something near the bottom but not at the very bottom. PokestarFan (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Old topics are archived twice a day. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Someone Please Help!

All im trying to do is add a actor and entertainer to wiki. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a damn name and description. Can someone pleae help me. I'm so mentally fustrated!!!!!

Thank you Micheal Ronturk Casting Agent  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 15:54, 6 August 2016‎ (UTC).

Wikidata is not about adding entries that are just a name and a description. It's about linked data. It might be worthwhile to first understand what Wikidata is about before you try to get others to help you with your commerical motivated quest. ChristianKl (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation page in Swedish

Today I noticed that the disambiguation page system here on Wikidata uses the wrong word in Swedish for "disambiguation page". Wikidata right now calls it "grensida", but Swedish Wikipedia always calls it "förgreningssida".

"Grensida" is a fairly okay short form of "förgreningssida" in Swedish, but since the expression "grensida" is not used at all on the Swedish Wikipedia and "grensida" has a slightly incorrect meaning I think Wikidata should use the more correct "Förgreningssida".

Here is where I found the bug: Today I added the Swedish disambiguation page to the page Chimera (Q225811). In the "In more languages" box at the top of the page the system as default suggested the description "grensida". I could have edited that description on that page, but the same erroneous default comes up on any other disambiguation page. So I recommend the default gets fixed.

I am an old Wikipedia editor but this is my first edits to Wikidata, so I don't know where to do the correction. (And I am guessing one might need to be admin or higher to edit the template or system page in question.)

--Davidgothberg (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I´m not sure, I see at Q4167410 in Swedish "förgreningssida inom Wikimedia". I would use that item as disambiguation page. --Molarus 20:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Davidgothberg, Molarus: It is not Q4167410 that is the problem, it is the bot-added descriptions in Swedish (sv). It is probably me who have proposed the bot-masters to add "grensida" instead of the, in my eyes, more awkward "förgreningssida" in Swedish. The latter is from the WP point of view most used form, but the question is if it makes any sense outside of SVWP. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Molarus: Right, the exact Swedish translation of the expression "Wikimedia disambiguation page" would be "Wikimedia-förgreningsssida", and is the one I would prefer. Or simply "Förgreningsssida" as I suggested above. The translation "förgreningssida inom Wikimedia" used in Q4167410 means "disambiguation page within Wikimedia" and is kind of correct too. But it isn't exactly equivalent and it sounds a bit awkward. And as I stated above, the current automatic system default "grensida" is less correct. (Although very cute in its shortness. :)
Anyway, this doesn't matter much. I just thought that someone here might know where to do the edit quick and easy, or where to report it. If not, don't waste any time on it.
Innocent bystander: Haha, I had a hunch that it was bots adding it. Since when I created a brand new item for a disambig page here on Wikidata today it did not auto-add any of the descriptions at all. (So I guess bots will swoop by later and add it.)
--Davidgothberg (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
To me, it is a little of "She sells seashells by the seashore" about "förgreningssida". It poorly fits the mouth of this Swede, but it is not a big deal at all. If a bot owner, who do this task, sees this thread, (s)he can feel free to change it! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Every week I add disambiguation description in 54 language using description in MediaWiki:Gadget-autoEdit.js, but I missing the edit where was changed the description (October 2015). Now I can change but is a long work, more or less 1M of item. --ValterVB (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: is correct Wikimedia-förgreningssida? --ValterVB (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
@ValterVB: I see no need at all to look up every page with "grensida" in the sv-description, since it is not misleading in any way. Such a task would only fill up our watchlists with nonsense. Take care of them when you come across such items by other reasons. "Wikimedia-förgreningssida" is fine, but "förgreningssida" is in my opinion enough. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
1M, hmm... why don't we have something to show in descriptions what is shown in P31 statement, in this case Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). Would save a lot of edits. --Stryn (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, these descriptions are very annoying when you want to clean up bad merges for example. But on the other hand, they are very handy when you are searching for the right item. But in the languages where you are used to read English, the English description is probably enough. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
May be annoying but they are a power tool to detect item to be merge. --ValterVB (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference qualifier

Consider the following: We have a statement (consisting of a claim and a reference). I'd like to add a qualifier and I actually have a new reference for the whole statement including the new qualifier. But the original reference doesn't tell anything about the qualifier I'd like to add. So what shall I do? Should I delete the old reference because it doesn't prove the whole new claim anymore? --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I daily add things like "P31:QXYZ startdate:1990/enddate:2010" and no source can confirm both qualifiers. I simply add several references in such cases. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I my case the new reference can confirm the claim including qualifiers. --Jobu0101 (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
If the first reference is a low-quality-reference (imported from:WP), it is my opinion you can remove it. Otherwise you can let it stay. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Most active Wikidata users (TOOL)

A short time ago a tool was linked from here, which was able to display the most active users of every property. I couldn't find it again. May you please help me?--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know other than this. --Stryn (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Updating VIAF items with wikidata info

In some of viaf items the Q number of Wikidata was updated. I don't know if it is an official update from Wikidata, bot or personal update. From unknown reason location places in Israel get an Arabic names instead of Hebrew names. The 151 - Heading-Geographic Name (NR) was added in Arabic. The major language in Israel is Hebrew. If it is an official update by Wikidata it should be changed. Examples: Makhtesh Ramon, Ramat Aviv - a neighborhood in Tel Aviv. Herzliya a city in Israel and many more. Geagea (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You should contact VIAF about this, we don't influence this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Requests related to Wikidata on Meta

Hello.See here.Tank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Property length (P2043) needs some input …


Do we have some people around here, that can speak/read Japanese? Or at least a person, who can tell me, if "藤阪太郎" is really "Taroh Fujisaka". Our transliteration gadget shows "teng阪tailang", so it's not very useful in this case :D This is just an example, I will have some 2(?) thousands of people name, for which I want to make sure, that English version is correct, not to make mess. Problem isn't urgent, just asking. If we don't, then I'll ask at enwiki. Didn't also find anything useful in Internet (for use in Python). --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like so. Google translates "Taro Fujisaka", but that version is much less used. - Kareyac (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
As I said, this was just an example. I will have too much such name pairs to do individual Google search, that's why I need a person, who can go trough such list and tell me, that English names look valid. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Try to use japanese names romanization tables like this. - Kareyac (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Problem is that Japanese names written with chinese characters can sometimes be read in different ways. So at best, you can only be sure that your English version is one of the possible ways, or not. To be sure, you will have to crosscheck that with the readings on jawiki :
  • 藤阪 太郎(ふじさか たろう、1994年6月6日 - )
    • ふじさか たろう = Fujisaka Taroh (lastname first) --Melderick (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Python. Guys, what I'm doing wrong? I have an item Franck Amegnigan (Q24251112), for which I want to get date of birth (P569) in output. So I have some code like this:

target = claims["P569"][0].getTarget()
aftervalue = target.after
pywikibot.output(aftervalue)#OK, returns 0
timevalue = target.time

For "time" I get an error "'WbTime' object has no attribute 'time'". But as I was able to get 'after' and 'time' is there...:

    "after": 0,
    "before": 0,
    "calendarmodel": "",
    "precision": 11,
    "time": "+00000001971-06-16T00:00:00Z",
    "timezone": 0

--Edgars2007 (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

 import pywikibot
 site = pywikibot.Site("wikidata", "wikidata")
 repo = site.data_repository()
 item = pywikibot.ItemPage(repo, "Q19753550")
 item_dict = item.get()
 clm_dict = item_dict["claims"]
 clm_list = clm_dict["P580"]
 for clm in clm_list:
    clm_trgt = clm.getTarget()

"dir" shows you what words you can use and "time" is not one of them. Use instead "year" to get the year or "month" to get the month, ... --Molarus 14:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Looks good. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nutrition and dietary information

I tried to model the nutrition information of food products in Wikidata, but failed. What are the right properties and how to model stuff like this? -- and also (Linked Open Data) --Teolemon (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Olympic Games

Hey folks :)

I am currently working with a bunch of people on a showcase for Wikidata and the query service. The idea is that we show how powerful and useful Wikidata is through the data we have about the Olympic Games. We'll do some nice queries and visualizations and so on. The data we have already seems to be pretty good for the past games. Is anyone already working on coordination around the 2016 games? It'd be totally awesome if we can push Wikidata as the place to go to for up-to-date open data about the Olympics. There is already Wikidata:WikiProject Olympics which could use a few more participants it seems.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Has anyone from your office approached the organisers, the IOC, for a collaboration? they might give us a data feed, or "press" accreditation to receive updates. We should also consider which language Wikipedia(s) we can work with to get data into infoboxes or other templates, in a speedy manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No we have not yet. If anyone has contacts and you want us to we can though. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In these days, I'm trying to harvest info from infoboxes (at least, for these Games) and add some (external) IDs for athletes. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In a case like this, I think an approach would come best from your office, or even the WMF, rather than individual volunteers. Once contact is established, then of course volunteers can continue the relationship. Chapters should equally contact their national bodies, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Jens from my team is on it now. Let's see how far he gets. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Update: Jens got a reply. They are already working with WMCH. However since they are understandably very busy this will only happen in Autumn. So nothing that will help us right now unfortunately. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Who is responsible at WMCH for that collaboration? Would be great to know, in order to ask them again in autumn…  MisterSynergy (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Jens is currently in touch to figure this out. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Did we get an answer to this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It's Jenny Ebermann. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Here is some of what we have so far: More ideas and other feedback welcome. It seems we don't have particularly good coverage for this year yet. So I am not sure we'll be able to create enough buzz just yet. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

User Codegazija

  Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Codegazija

-- Dummytimestamp 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #221

Made the tatus bar messages in the Query Service translatable
I did not find where it is possible to translate the string of Wikidata Query Service. Could you show me in order I translate it into my native language? Pamputt (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Pamputt: On translatewiki. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Pamputt (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Typeahead qualifer pop-up preference — previous choice no longer ...

Last week when I was adding data to DNB biographical entries, eg. Cunningham, Alexander (1814-1893) (Q19071328), when I added qualifiers to the STATED IN component, I was offered both "volume" and "page" in the ready-choice pop-ups. This week I am just offered "page". Why the change? Can I please have volume back as it was very useful for this work.

On this matter, 1) what is the official terminology for the preferential popups, especially in the qualifiers; 2) it would be really great if there was clarity and information about how these are created or requested. It is a blackhole in the information space as best as I can tell. On previous occasions just being pointed to the page where you questions of the mega-techs just seems weird, especially for a valuable component where we really want good qualifiers and do wish to make it easier.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@billinghurst: We do these suggestion based on existing statements. During the last month the number of published in (P1433) with qualifier volume (P478) decreased from 11242 to 3514 (but I have no idea why). So that when I updated the suggester's data on Monday, the probability of volume (P478) as qualifier dropped below the threshold needed for suggesting properties. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Questions about time values

Hello, I try to write Lua code to present time values from Wikidata in a Wikipedia. However there are some things I think is unclear in the description of time values. I hope you will be able to clarify.

1) Calendarmodel: Does a time value like "28 February 1648, Julian" mean

a) The date is given in the Julian calendar, or
b) The date is given as a proleptic Gregorian date, but should be converted to a Julian date before it is presented to a user

2) Precision decade: What does year 1882 with a precision of decade mean:

a) Any time from 1880 to 1889
b) Any time from 1881 to 1890
c) Any time from 1877 to 1877
d) Any time from 1872 to 1892

3) Precision century: What does year 1882 with a precision of century mean:

a) Any time from 1800 to 1899
b) Any time from 1801 to 1900
c) Any time from 1832 to 1932
d) Any time from 1782 to 1982

4) Interpretation of negative year values, but I see that item is already being discussed.

Thank you for any help. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is:
1 is 1a on, but 1b on It's not clear what it was before 2015.
2d, generally represented as 1880s
3d, generally represented as 19th century
4: see Help:Dates#Years BC. Based on info here and there, I tried to do a summary at Help:Dates.
--- Jura 16:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Jura. However I fail to see how 2d can be represented as 1880s. If I get that time value and precision from Wikidata and present it on a Wikipedia as 1880's, then people will say that the information was false if it later turns out that the exact year was 1874. For me 1880s equals option 2a, while the 189th decade equals option 2b. And similar for case 3. The answer to case 1 doesn't enlighten either as I query neither from or from, but as told from a module in a Wikipedia. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1 should definitely be a
2 and 3 are tricky because we don't have the interval like in your examples but only the year and the precision and store that. We then do some interpretation on top of that in the UI which turns 2 into 1880s and 3 into 19. century. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The way the UI works, 2 is 2a (1880 is already 1880s) and 3 is 3b (1800 is still 18th century). If one wants c or d, earliest/latest date should be used. --Melderick (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's just hard to explain this with just a few words. @Daniel_Kinzler_(WMDE):, what do you think of 3a vs 3b ? --Melderick (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if it actually matters. Century precision is a precision, not a specific year range. Displaying a decade or a century can help, but it shouldn't make one assume it must be exactly in that range. That being said, I find 1800 as default for 18th century sub-optimal. --- Jura 13:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like mw:Wikibase/DataModel/JSON#time got an extensive update in the meantime. .. Thanks @Daniel_Kinzler_(WMDE):.
--- Jura 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding information twice

Should data be added to both Wikidata and a project page (if you are maintaining that page) or will the information eventually get copied both ways? Should you assume this, or does everything need to be done twice? e.g. For this addition I made to Chatham Naval Memorial (Q5087681), the en-wiki article (en:Chatham Naval Memorial) does not contain IWM memorial ID (P3038) or National Heritage List for England number (P1216). Should I add there or here or both? Also, is it not easier to do batch additions or bot additions for large lists like this? I'd like to help with that if possible, as adding things slowly bit by bit feels a bit slow. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anything that can be added at Wikidata should be added in a Wikipedia infobox. Unfortunately, we have problems convincing Wikipedia users for that. So frequently, people rather add things three times in the same article at Wikipedia instead of adding it once at Wikidata ;)
Eventually, I suppose we will get there. Wikidata:Infobox Tutorial attempts to help making use of Wikidata in infoboxes.
--- Jura 12:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes there is no Wikipedia infobox, what then? I tried in vain to find a template relating to the Imperial War Museum memorial database. I did manage to find en:Template:National Heritage List for England and Template:National Heritage List for England (Q15520539) but why is that not linked to National Heritage List for England number (P1216), or should it be linked to National Heritage List for England (Q6973052)? Also, I want to use Commons:Template:On Wikidata to tag this image with the IWM memorial ID (P3038) 56958. Would I need to create a Wikidata item for that war memorial first? Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Many questions - I'll try to supply some answers.
Thanks. I created Llangynog War Memorial (Q26252561) (I only put in the CADW ID number - can I leave the other details to get pulled in from somewhere else?). It took a while to find the 'create an item' link. And the creation was failing when I tried to create from the link at the bottom of a search (to make sure it didn't already exist), as that fills in fields that can't be unfilled... I wanted to copy what was already at Chingford War Memorial (Q18157553) and War Memorial Cross, Beeston (Q13528854), but you can't seem to copy from one item to another, or can you? Is there a way to group these memorial crosses together, or does that have to be done via a property such as 'memorial cross'? It feels like re-creating the already existing categories on Wikipedia... Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added the IWM memorial ID (P3038) - if you have the info - add it! The IWM memorial ID (P3038) property has only been added recently. Maybe one day someone will create a bot or something to upload details from the IWM database, but I'm not aware of any plans. I've added some other details and references to Llangynog War Memorial (Q26252561).
I'm fairly new to Wikidata, but I think that categories like those in Wikipedia are deprecated in favour of using things like queries. So you could ask, for example, for all items that are war memorials that are also listed buildings in Wales. This approach has the advantage that there is no need to manually add items to a particular category, and will always be up-to-date.
As far as I know, it isn't possible to create an item as a copy of something else and then edit it (but that would be a good idea!), and there are gadgets and tools around to help with data entry. I tend to use QuickStatements (as mentioned above) if I'm planning to add a number of similar items. Robevans123 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Creating an CC0 OTRS form for data

Hi all

As previously written about Lydia some people have been asking about an OTRS form for releasing databases or parts of databases to Wikidata and that WMF legal have asked for a draft. To get this started I have asked on the OTRS noticeboard on Commons about their CC0 OTRS which is:

I hereby affirm that I, [your name here], am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the media work attached to this email.
I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[your name here] date

What do people think about this as an OTRS form for Wikidata? The only issue I can see is the sentence that says I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen

There are a lot of other questions about practically how Wikidata could have an OTRS system but if we could focus on a draft for WMF legal to approve I think that would be helpful.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, what do you think? Is this enough to take to WMF legal? I think that sentence I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen is probably misleading and should be cut. --John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think this is fine and I agree with you. Should I take it to legal or will you? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, if you could take it to them that would be great, I don't know who to talk to. If I can help in any other way with this please let me know. Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
OK I'll get in touch with legal. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

458 BC

Just before I do them all wrong. Do I have to enter "458 BCE" or "457 BCE" for the year 458 on Q309637#P39 ?

Please read before commenting.
--- Jura 21:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See Wikidata's data model at [4]. Notice there is a year zero, so, for example, this edit made August 3 stores the date internally as
       Timestamp     −0439-00-00T00:00:00Z

       Timezone      +00:00

       Calendar      Julian

       Precision     1 year

       Before        0 years

       After         0 years
But the user interface displays the date as 439 BCE. Thus the user interface contradicts the data model and needs to be repaired. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The following query uses these:

Above shows how it appears on WQS.

Can I conclude the following:

  1. "458 BC" should be entered as "458 BCE"
  2. When querying the data, one should be aware that the year is off by one.
  3. Some years may be off by one?

To figure out which ones can be relied on, can we add a qualifier P1480 with an item value "may be off by 1 year" to existing values? If the date is already in a qualifier, the qualifier should be applied to the main statement. If date precision is less than 9 (e.g. decades), this isn't needed.
--- Jura 14:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The following query uses these:

  • Properties: date of death (P570)    
     1 SELECT 	?item ?itemLabel ?date ?prec
     2 {
     3 	?item p:P570/psv:P570 ?d_node . 
     4   	?d_node wikibase:timePrecision ?prec .
     5     ?d_node wikibase:timeValue ?date . 
     6     FILTER (year(?date) < 1 && ?prec > 8) 
     7 	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }	  
     8 }
     9 ORDER BY DESC(?date)
    10 LIMIT 5000

Looking at a few on the above list, I don't think (3) is needed. Maybe there is an easy way to cross-check it. @NavinoEvans: might want to comment.
--- Jura 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Jura1 (talkcontribslogs) asked in part
Can I conclude the following:
  1. "458 BC" should be entered as "458 BCE"
I regard the user interface as only one way to read and write data into the database. Other methods might follow the above-mentioned data model. To use the broken user interface to enter correct (that is, obedient to the data model) data into the database, one would have to enter "457 BC", "457 BCE", or "-457" into the user interface. The broken user interface will display the incorrect value "457 BCE" after the data is stored. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
At least on, dates are rendered as entered. 458 BC appears as 458 BCE. For Q156778#P570: {{#property:P570|from=Q156778}} gives 14 September 9 BCE.
--- Jura 17:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but an equally valid way to retrieve the data is to use your favorite browser to visit
Part of the result will be
So a person going by the data model would interpret this as 10 BCE. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
At least for rdf, it works:
  • I think the various developers have no common ground and every date before the year AD 1 is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Wrong or not, at least, we seem to follow the definition provided. I added a section at Help:Dates#Years_BC
--- Jura 20:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
If we presume the stored value represent a notation that includes the year zero, like the data model says, and that the value in the RDF notation also follows a notation that includes the year zero, then the software that outputs the value shouldn't add one to negative values. It would be interesting to put the year -1 into a sandbox value and see what the RDF output is. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):: Can you confirm that "There is a year number 0 that refers to the year that is commonly called 1 BC(E)." [5] is relevant now relevant mainly for RDF. This was added in 2014 by @Christopher Johnson (WMDE):[6]. As of now, we should understand this per . Interestingly, both year 0 and year 1 BC appear as <ps:P585 rdf:datatype="">0000-01-01T00:00:00Z</ps:P585> in rdf (Q13406268), so we could use either for year 1 BC, but year 2 BC should be entered as 2 BCE.
--- Jura 22:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Just note that RDF date rendering is completely different code than Wikidata GUI date parsing/rendering (and that is also different from JSON export). That said, RDF code does follow XSD 1.1, and it has year 0 which is a year preceding 1 AD, i.e. 1 BCE. I'm pretty sure JSON follows the same. It is a good idea to check on (it runs the same code as main site, excepting very recent changes but we didn't change much in that area for some time) to ensure you're getting what you wanted, by looking at Special:EntityData/QQQQ.rdf and Special:EntityData/QQQQ.json. If you notice something you don't think works as it should be, ping one of the devs, e.g. myself. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF): As the discussion above shows, for Nero Claudius Drusus (Q156778) and P570 (death date) the JSON and RDF give different results, "-0009-09-14T00:00:00Z" and "-0008-09-14T00:00:00Z" respectively. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, Horace (Q6197)—who died 27 November 8 BCE of the Julian calendar—might be a better example, because it is easier to find online citations for this date.[7] Jc3s5h (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I see where all the confusion is coming from and I am trying to find ways to clarify it more. Basically the issue is that RDF and JSON use different standard versions. One has the year 0 and one doesn't. The standard was changed under our feet while we were developing and we can't really change either of the output formats to use the other one. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the situation is fairly clear even if I don't think the situation on is ideal. Accordingly, I made a feature request at phab:T142198. There is some discussion on Help talk:Dates about BC dates, but I don't see how to formulate Help:Dates#Years BC differently that would satisfy Jc3. I think it does state how we should enter these dates today.
--- Jura 09:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel/JSON was updated today by Daniel Kinzler (WMDE). It makes it clear that the JSON does not support the year 0. Accordingly, any values in the database displaying something like "1 January 0" are invalid and need to be corrected. So now my answer to the original question at the top of the thread, 'Do I have to enter "458 BCE" or "457 BCE' for the year 458 on Q309637#P39 ?" is to enter it as "458 BCE". Then add the source used by the place we imported it from, the English Wikipedia. The information originally came from and they deserve the credit. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How do we model the end of a marriage relationship?

When divorce and separation happens at the same time it's easy to model the end with "end time". What do we do when those two dates are distinct? ChristianKl (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I know from other discussions that what "marriage" is, can differ in opinion for different users. My point of view is that "marriage" is the legal part of a relationship. If they live together or not is less important (to me). We maybe need a complementary property to describe who they live together with? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I think there's already partner (P451) for cohabitation and other non-marriage relationships. --Laboramus (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

People commemorated on a memorial

What property should be used for people with no known grave who are commemorated on a memorial? In this case, I want to associate Christopher Furness (Q5112371) with Dunkirk Memorial (Q2525028) but cannot find the right property. place of burial (P119) does not seem quite right, as a memorial is not a burial place. I did search for burial, and there are lots of 'Q' things to do with burial, which is confusing. Only a few 'P' things though. I'll go read Wikidata:Glossary. Carcharoth (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

commemorates (P547) - you can search for properties by prefix your search "P:", in this case I searched for "P:commemorates". Also, note how I've formatted your question, to use templates for "Q" items and "P" properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
So I would add the person being commemorated to the object where they are commemorated. That makes sense. So is there a difference between adding a burial location to a person buried there, and adding the person to the burial ground? In the old Bach-monument Leipzig (Q439130) example, the monument commemorates a single person, Johann Sebastian Bach, but the Dunkirk Memorial (Q2525028) commemorates hundreds, not just one person. When you go to Johann Sebastian Bach (Q1339) there is no cross-referencing with the monument. Why does old Bach-monument Leipzig (Q439130) not appear linked at the Johann Sebastian Bach page? Carcharoth (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the issue of inverse properties: some go "up", some "down", and sometimes we have two, one in each direction. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I see. Andy I'd like to get this right before doing too much work on this. Which way round should it be? For typical CWGC cemeteries and the CWGC memorials, the numbers buried will be large, but typically only a few tens with Wikipedia articles, but if people take photos of the graves and gravestones, then you could end up with large numbers of photos to associate with each memorial and cemetery. I think it would be best to add burial (i.e. no known grave) commemoration on a memorial the same way as you do with a cemetery. There is the option to have 'cenotaph' in place of burial (P119), but that is technically incorrect as it is not a burial. These people have no known grave - there is no burial place. It would make more sense to have a 'place of commemoration' property. Carcharoth (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I think having a separate 'place of commemoration' might be unnecessary. Would it be best to rename place of burial (P119) to "place of burial or commemoration", or would it be best to track places of commemoration separately. Some people will only have a place of burial, some will only have a place of commemoration. Some will have more than one place of commemoration. Some may have several places of burial (exhumation and reburial, or burial of different body parts). Should it all be kept together in one property, or not? Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem comes with people who have many places of commemoration - Victoria (Q9439) is the first person to come to mind but there will be others. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Administrative units of Berlin

road sign, showing both the district and the locality

Before this gets completely out of hand: @Tanzmariechen: and I disagree about what an administrative unit in the context of Berlin is. See [8] and [9]. Berlin is divided into districts (Bezirke, see borough of Berlin (Q821435)), each of which has its own administrative offices. These districts are then officially sub-divided into localities (Ortsteile, see Ortsteil (Q253019)). While the latter do not have a separate administration, they are clearly part of the "administrative structure" and as such subject to located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and contains administrative territorial entity (P150). From a purely practical standpoint, using localities instead of district also makes sense, since while the former are purely political construct, the latter are what matter in everyday life and are what is referenced everywhere, including other projects, such as Commons and Wikipedia. I would value further input in this matter. --Srittau (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is the eternal question, yes! I think we in Sweden (Q34) has used location (P276) for localities. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand the structure in Sweden is much more involved than that of Germany or specifically Berlin, where for every spot there is a clear hierarchical structure locality -> district -> Berlin -> Germany. Also, from another purely practical standpoint, it is much harder to query for things in a certain locality, if it does not follow the usual located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) structure. --Srittau (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
It is not simple to know if you are inside or outside of a Swedish locality, yes! Statistics Sweden have specific maps (who very few know about) for the statistical localities. And those can differ largely from what people in general think is the locality. P131 demands a sort of transitivity. In Sweden we do not have such a transitivity for the administrative division, except for the relation between municipalities and counties. And that is not even true for all sorts of municipalities. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
If you claim that there's an official sub-divided into localities, where do you think that sub-division is officially defined? Could you add it as reference?
As far as administrative structures go Berlin also has "Quartiere" like . That page only lists the Quartier as being located in the district (Bezirk) Mitte and not as being located in a Ortsteil. To me that suggests that Orteile aren't a "administrative structure". ChristianKl (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, administrative division is more or less always in aspect of something. When it comes to cultural heritage we normally here use "civil parishes" as the lowest level. When it comes to censuses, it used to be "parishes", but that is now replaced by "districts". When it comes to real estates, they are now organised by municipality. When it comes to health care and development, it is the county counsils or regions. When it comes to nature reserves, it is the counties who are the lowest level. Not all things are organised in the same way. Some levels can be irrelevant in some aspects, while they are valid in others. Provinces are here not notable in many ways today, but when you ask where somebody comes from and what dialect (s)he speaks. (S)he would probably identify hirself as coming from a specific province. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sure, there are official references for the localities. For example, this page by the administration of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf lists the seven localities of the district, the date of the resolution about those localities, with an official map here. The official maps published by the Senate of Berlin here (for example "Karte von Berlin 1:5000") also contain the names and borders of the localities, but not the borders of "statistical areas", such as quarters. --Srittau (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
But the localities in Berlin do not have any administrative function and are no administrative units, see de:Bezirksverwaltung in Berlin: Teil der zweistufigen Verwaltung der deutschen Bundeshauptstadt Berlin; like in Hamburg there are only two administrative levels and units, also see Gross-Berlin-Gesetz--Tanzmariechen (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself is no good source for this. A lot changed in Berlin since the Gross-Berlin-Gesetz of 1920. In particular Quartiere have clear administrative functions and are administrative units.
As far as Orteile go, I have found that official statistics about the inhabitants of the Orteile exist: . lists administrative level in Germany but doesn't list Orteile or Quartiere. suggests that a administrative unit has to have "Zuständigkeiten"/administrative responsibilities. The English page seems to be more vague. Quartiere do imply administrative responsibilities but Orteile don't.
Orteile have signs and are relevant for statistics. Maybe we should have a new property for them? ChristianKl (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, why not let P131 stay vague and skip the part about "transitivity" in this property. It is only relevant in young and well organised states. Lets add "all" levels in this property instead. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
"All levels" is vague. You could call postal codes a level but postal codes generally aren't considered "administrative territorial entities". In the same way Orteile don't seem to me to be "administrative territorial entities". I create a proposal for a new property for this case: ChristianKl (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The use of located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) must differ from location (P276), so everything which is no strict administration unit goes with location (P276) and vice versa. we can use part of (P361) and has part (P527) for all combinations without creating new properties--Tanzmariechen (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Postal codes are here in Sweden set by a private company. (Postnord) I cannot see how they could be administrative entities. --

sport (P641) or occupation (P106) for sports persons

Dear community, we have a generic property to relate items to a type of sport, which is sport (P641). Technically it can be used for pretty much everything, but as always with generic properties there are better ways to relate things for many items. For sports persons (athletes, coaches, umpires, officials, …) it is strongly preferable to add occupation (P106) statements over sport (P641), and I wrote a section on this at Property talk:P641 last year. Unfortunately, there are still sport (P641) statements additionally being added to sports person items by editors, and I was asked to request participation in that discussion after a dispute with User:Thierry Caro (see here). To my view there is no benefit at all in having P641 and P106 at the same time, it just makes items messy.

There are indeed more than 300.000 of such P641 statements on sports person items, many of them have been added before we understood how to use P106. I don’t think that this large number of statements justifies to continue adding more of them, if we know better meanwhile. Would it be worth to update these with a unified approach for all sports persons, using Bots?

Since this discussion is strongly related to P641, I ask for participation at Property talk:P641. Future users can then find all important discussions there. Thanks and regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is some uncertainty regarding this property and other sports-related properties such as sports discipline competed in (P2416) and position played on team / speciality (P413). They all somehow compete with occupation (P106) and to another extent with participant of (P1344) too. What should we do exactly? This needs a thorough review once and for all. Thierry Caro (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
First questions. If sport (P641) is to be banned from all items about people, how can we deal with persons who do not qualify as having basket-ball (or whatever) as their sport (P641) but are still known for playing it as a leisure activity, for instance? Should Barack Obama get golfer as his occupation then? Or should we forget about storing his special interest in playing golf? It is not stored for the moment, but isn't that what sport (P641) is also made for? instrument (P1303) also overlaps with occupation (P106) most of the time but I guess it exists because sometimes people play an instrument without properly having music as their occupation. Thierry Caro (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I have always thought, that 641 in such cases are redundat. The same goes for having located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and country (P17) on geo-objects (at least, in simple cases). I think there was a discussion about 17/131 here few months ago, the decision was to ignore, that it's redundant :) About props mentioned by Therry (2416, 413), I don't think that there are (big) problems. At least for athletics - P2416=100 m, 200 m, 400 m; P106=sprinter, as there isn't such thing as "100 m sprinter", well, maybe there is, but not widely used. --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I see it the same way. For example 'bicycle racer' as value for P106, includes 4 different types of sport and P641 says which one. --Molarus 10:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Molarus: I’m not sure whether I get your point, and whether this is what @Edgars2007 meant. sport cyclist (Q2309784) appears to be about road bicycle racing, so which are the four different types of sports then? And even if there were subtypes, the sport (P641) statement would only be qualifier for the occupation (P106) statement, not an independent statement. And it would even be better to create structural items for each of the four cyclist types… . —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Which I’m fine with, as long as it is considered as a preliminary tag to enable interested users to find those items for further work. I run a WikiProject that even recommends to do exactly that, but it also says that these P641 statements are indeed considered to be preliminary and going to be replaced by better ones as part of the WikiProject work. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Given the incremental growth of Wikidata, I think we should avoid removing the first step. What would be the disadvantage of keeping it?
--- Jura 08:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
There is no (permanent) use for it: one simply cannot perform any useful query based on these (redundant) statements which cannot be done by a better and even simpler query. It would in fact be a very flat type of categorization if we kept these statements, including anything that in some way is deemed to be related to this type of sport (e.g. the Obama & Golf example given by another editor earlier in this thread). Things will become really messy, if we keep those statement, and it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain good data quality; it will also become difficult to provide simple queries, if there are different (competing) ways to relate things out there. I also worry about other useless (redundant) statements that can be added for the same reason and effectively just bloat everything up with no use at all. Thus I really think it is a process of quality control if we remove these (redundant) statements in favor of more specific ones. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how it complicates queries, but maybe you have a sample.
--- Jura 08:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Let’s consider a simple task: query all association football players. A naïve data user could see some statements sport (P641) association football (Q2736) and start with (WDQ notation for simplicity, but numbers are from
  • CLAIM[641:2736] — 279.599 results, but crap, there’s a lot of other stuff in the results set
  • CLAIM[641:2736] AND CLAIM[31:5] (additionally limit to persons) — 175.851 results, looks better
But there is also the competing (and superior) statement occupation (P106) association football player (Q937857). Let’s have a look at the results:
  • CLAIM[106:937857] — 198.605 results
Interestingly these are almost 23.000 more than with the sport (P641) on person items. Can we learn about the differences?
  • CLAIM[106:937857] AND CLAIM[641:2736] — 172.746 results; so most of the players with P641 also have P106, but not all
  • CLAIM[641:2736] AND CLAIM[31:5] AND NOCLAIM[106:937857] — 3137 results; number almost okay, but what are these items? Could be players, but could also be something else like referees, officials, fans & supporters, inventors of the football game, club owners, whatever…; I am pretty sure that most of these are no players, but if you browse through the results set you’ll easily find players as well.
  • CLAIM[106:937857] AND NOCLAIM[641:2736] — 25.859 results; these are missed by the naïve user mentioned in the beginning
This was association football, a field in which a lot of fruitful effort is spent into data quality, so I guess it could be worse for other types of sport. But as someone who has not worked in this area, I immediately see some problems and therefore have doubts in data quality.
What we can learn is that we need our data in a way that is simple and unambiguous. “Simple” means that there is only one defining statement (such as CLAIM[106:937857], but not CLAIM[641:2736] AND CLAIM[31:5]) for frequently asked data, and “unambiguous” means that there is only one property to deal with, not many competing ones.
occupation (P106) has another advantage over sport (P641) for sports persons. On the one hand side it is more specific, since unlike P641 it cannot be used for non-person items. On the other hand it is more generic than P641, which can only be used for sports persons, but not for others. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I have always added only occupation (P106) for persons, and I think that sport (P641) is more suitable for sports events, like Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q5377427) = sport (P641): tennis (Q847). --Stryn (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Even there we have more specific ways to relate this event to tennis (Q847) by Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q5377427) instance of (P31) tennis tournament (Q13219666) (and indeed Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics (Q5377427) does not have a sport (P641) statement). sport (P641) is indeed useful for abstract concepts such as tennis tournament (Q13219666), where it is properly used. P641 with its generic nature can basically be considered as the very last resort if there is really no other way to relate items. Unfortunately, P641’s definition allows its usage for almost everything, I even considered to put it to the Properties for deletion page if we don’t get it fixed. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Template creation

Following the discussion at Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/07#Notability_of_items_for_templates, I updated Wikidata:Notability as follows: "If a link is a template, the item must contain at least two such sitelinks, and any of them must not be one of /doc, /sandbox, /testcases or /TemplateData subpages. Items for non-subpages can be created with 1 sitelink, but shouldn't be created in great numbers.".
--- Jura 09:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

People "will complain" about great number — how much is that? :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, here we had 400,000 (at least measured by the increase in P31 values over the last month). Maybe 1000? Let's say if ValterVB has to spend an afternoon deleting them because arwiki cleaned-up, then it was in great number ;)
--- Jura 09:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 ;) Actually we have 716527 item with instance of (P31)=Wikimedia template (Q11266439) and with only 1 sitelink.
SELECT ?item (COUNT(DISTINCT ?sitelink) AS ?count) 
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q11266439.
  ?sitelink schema:about ?item.
GROUP BY ?item 
HAVING (?count = 1)

Try it!

--ValterVB (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Education and degrees earned in infoboxes at Wikipedia

This may have some effect on Wikidata since we import information from the infoboxes. w:User:Therequiembellishere is actively removing degrees earned and leaving an edit summary "removing clutter", see this edit and this edit and this edit. Naming an institution without the accompanying degree does not serve the reader and is against the parameter instructions on the template documentation page. The parameter usage states to use the "alma mater" (singular in Latin) field for the last institution attended if that is all that is known, and use the "education" field for degrees earned and year of graduation. I noticed the deletions at w:Franklin D. Roosevelt when I looked to see where he went to law school. This editor is also changing law schools and medical schools to the parent university in multiple entries using piping. See here for instance. I expect to see a law school or medical school for those degrees, not the parent university. I find it confusing to click on a link and take me to a different entry: "| alma_mater =[[University of Virginia School of Law|University of Virginia]]" I can see using the piping in the reverse, say, if we do not have an entry for a medical school, display the medical school and pipe to the parent institution: "| alma_mater =[[Trump University|Trump University of Real Estate and Law and Medicine]]" I am not sure which of the two we import. I could use help in reversing their changes. Maybe it is time to retire the parameter "alma_mater" in infoboxes since it is redundant with "education" and leads to silly edit wars over which one to use. Here is the last 500 edits and the massive number of changes.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I would hope any imports from info boxes have already been completed? Anyway, the data should be structured as you suggest on the wikidata side - Wikidata:WikiProject Education lists properties already available and appropriate for that. Is enwiki ready to replace these infoboxes with data sourced form wikidata? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
From the examples provided here it seems like Wikidata has imported the universities but it hasn't imported the degrees. Jeff Bingaman (Q705498) has field on en.Wikipedia filled for the degrees (B.A.) / (J.D.) but that information is not on Wikidata. It's also the information that w:User:Therequiembellishere seems to be removing. ChristianKl (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia have the standard for what the infobox is supposed to contain defined somewhere? ChristianKl (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Is there some property that should be used for marking periodicity, i.e. for magazines, awards, etc. - once per year, once per 2 months, etc. State Youth Award (Q1469577) and Nemesis (Q23362031) use frequency (P2144) - which I don't like since it's not what frequency means - if we talk about it in terms of frequency, it should be not "1 year" but "3.171×10-8 Hz" but I don't think anybody wants to see that. So should we create a new property or should we use some existing property to describe it in some better way? --Laboramus (talk) 08:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

publication interval (P2896). Thierry Caro (talk) 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for periodical publications, though not for other periodical events I think (awards, ceremonies, competitions, religious observances, etc.). --Laboramus (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, found time period of periodically occurring event (P2257) - this is what I was looking for. --Laboramus (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like we still miss a general property for period of circulation, for instance the time a planet needs around the sun. -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
No, we already have that: orbital period (P2146). --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
orbital period (P2146), term length of office (P2097), half-life (P2114) rotation period (P2147), life expectancy (P2250) mean lifetime (P2645), residence time of water (P3020) are sub-property of duration (P2047), but publication interval (P2896), time period of periodically occurring event (P2257), and frequency (P2144) have no super-property. I'll make publication interval (P2896) and time period of periodically occurring event (P2257) also sub-property of duration (P2047) because they give a duration between events. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Taxon vs. clade

There are quite a few items that are in the "taxon tree", but instead of having instance of (P31):taxon (Q16521), they have instance of (P31):clade (Q713623). Example. Should they

Taxon people, what's your take? --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, taxon rank (P105):clade (Q713623) is nonsense. Clades are something that is used in order to avoid rank-based taxa of traditional "Linnean" systematics. Essentially, clades are unranked, i.e. none of the pre-defined ranks of traditional systematics is attributed to them. However, clades of course are hierarchical, in the sense that they are more or less inclusive. In the example of malvids (Q2133361), the use of taxon name (P225) is problematic. In my opinion, it is better to restrict "scientific name" to use with traditional rank-based taxa. I propose to create taxon rank (P105):"unranked". As long as it is possible to speak of "unranked taxa", a clade can be also be an "unranked taxon". --Franz Xaver (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that taxon rank (P105)=clade (Q713623) is nonsense. Magnus could you give a more detailed explanation for your question?. At the moment we model "unranked taxa" as taxon rank (P105)=novalue, Franz Xaver. A restricted taxon name (P225) should provide a solution for all this cases. --Succu (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, "novalue" is also a solution. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Different biologists might consider some group as a clade while other use it for a taxon and also use the same name for it. Can a "novalue"-value be combined with a value in a way such that both exists? Unranked (and novalue) sounds wrong as a ranking can be used though not the traditional one. For us to restrict where to use scientific names further than what is used in reliable sources does not sound as a good idea. Perhaps changing taxon name to scientific name and thereby including names used for groups independent of in what regime they were grouped. --Averater (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Clade as instance of Rather than use "clade" as a value for taxon, we can have instance of (P31) for items which are themselves considered clades or possibly have species as "member of" member of (P463). —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

\o/ It's perfectly fine. Clades are kinds of taxons as any clade is a taxon, hence it meets the definition of "subclass of" and can perfectly use the same properties as almost everyone else on Wikidata. See also Help:Classification. Also note that in the text a solution to generalize the notion of taxon ranks is given : use subclasses of taxon like "kingdom" still use the same properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll also take the opportunity to talk about a rank related proposal of mine : Wikidata:Property_proposal/lower_rank_than It's related to modelling the ranks in a hierarchy (taxon, military grades, ...) and taxonomy is discussed. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Both "instance of clade" + "rank is no value" and "instance of taxon" + "rank is clade" can be made to work, if the purpose is to provide taxoboxes for Wikipedia. For some other purposes, it is not handy to have "rank is clade", as clades need not have a rank. And yes, any named clade is a taxon, so it is perfectly all right to have clade as a subclass of taxon. - Brya (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Get badge indicator data in Wikipedia pages.

Hi. In zh:Template:Expand language:

This article may be expanded with text translated from the corresponding article in [[:{{{langcode}}}:{{#invoke:Wikidata|getSiteLink|{{{langcode}}}wiki}}|X Wikipedia]]. {{#switch:yes| {{{fa|}}} = It's a Featured article in the corresponding language Wikipedia. | {{{fl|}}} = ... | {{{ga|}}} = ... | #default = }}

Could we get the badge indicator data of one page in Wikipedia, rather than set para fa/fl/ga mamually? --風中的刀劍 (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You can create a loop over all sitelinks to see if any of them have a badge. /Innocent bystander away from keyboard.

Problem with P949

There is some problem with National Library of Israel identifier (P949) causing hundreds of entries being added to single item (see William Shakespeare (Q692) or [10]). I already reported the problem at property talkpage weeks ago, but there is no feedback, as the proposer of the property is not yet active on WD and he was apparently the only maintainer of the property. Any body can help?

(I think it is also the illustration why we need more than one supporting vote at property proposals). --Jklamo (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jklamo: Please explain how you draw that conclusion from the case at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it is obvious. National Library of Israel identifier (P949) was created hastily after only 3 day of discussion with only one supporting vote. So there was no time to found out that there is some structural problem with this property. Now we have thousands of items with wrong data that nobody wants to fix (as apparently there is no simple way to fix).--Jklamo (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
"3 day of discussion" relates to duration, not the number of supporting comments. P949 suggests a property from Wikidata's early days - we would no longer create one in such short time, (at least not without greater scrutiny - see proposal below for a speedy creation process requiring such safeguards). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I have pointed it out somewhere also. Having dozens or hundreds of identifiers does not serve a purpose. I cannot read Hebrew and the translator does not do it justice. I think the parameter is identifying works where the person is mentioned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the meaning of the property is unclear or it is used in the wrong way. The current use is obviously (unintended) spam and should be removed. -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately I agree. There are 3600+ items with more than one entry. All these are wrong.
And there is similar problem with N6I ID (obsolete) (P1946) [11]. --Jklamo (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
They are only "all wrong" if having a single ID and no more is a hard limit. I see no evidence of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like something that can be fixed. There are also other properties used on both people and works. @Magnus Manske: could de-activate the Mix'N'Match catalog?
--- Jura 06:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Now deactivated. All data is preserved, just in case. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I made a bot request for some basic clean-up: Wikidata:Bot_requests#P:P949_cleanup.
--- Jura 16:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Community communication for Wikidata

Hello everybody,

I’m Léa, I’m working at Wikimedia Deutschland since today as community communication manager for Wikidata  

We may already have met on the Wikimedia projects with my personal account, Auregann. I contribute on French Wikipedia, where I used to participate in the newcomers welcoming project, add a few pictures on Commons, and I’m an active member of the local user group laNCO, in which I organized a lot of community events, training sessions and GLAM partnerships since 2011.

I used to work in IT, web development, on a local open data program, then I’ve been an IT trainer in libraries for three years.

I started my position at WMDE to support Lydia on the community communication on Wikidata, and some projects of improving the Wikimedia projects with Wikidata data : I will also support all the structured data efforts for Wikipedia, Commons, Wiktionnary… I’m here to discuss with volunteers who edit the projects, welcome your ideas and suggestions, help to find solutions to your problems and make sure that we can work together to improve our projects and keep editing our favorite knowledge base in a nice atmosphere  

I will begin by discovering the working processes on Wikidata, chatting with you and helping Lydia to answer to the technical questions. I’ll also work on upcoming topics such as reviewing our communication tools, getting the improved showcase items selection process going, and organizing something cool for Wikidata’s 4th anniversary  

If you have any question, suggestion or idea, my talk page is wide open and I will answer you as soon as I can. If you think that my advice could be useful or if you want to inform me about a discussion happening somewhere, feel free to ping me. You can also send me an e-mail (lea.lacroix or reach me on IRC (LeaAuregann_WMDE).

I’m very happy to join the team and look forward to working with you on all your projects!

Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Welcome and enjoy your new position. Snipre (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Welcome and enjoy Wikidata and Berlin .. -- Jura 18:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Be welcome!! Lymantria (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Welcome --Melderick (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm incredibly happy that we found Léa. She is a great fit for Wikidata, passionate about our community and vision and has her heart at the right place. With her experience around Wikipedia I am confident she'll also be able to better support Wikidata on Wikipedia and all the other sister projects than I ever could. As I have said when we opened up the position: I'll still be around and have an open ear for you - now just focusing more on all the other product management tasks. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Bienvenue de l'autre côté de la force ;) Delphine (WMF) (talk) 07:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

changing thousand separator

Is it possible to choose a different character for the thousand and decimal separator? Both '.' and ',' look very stupidconfusing imo when used as thousand separator, so I'd prefer a space (preferably U+202F), but couldn't find any option to change that (for me as a user setting of course, don't want to force it on anyone). A CSS class on the separator would propably suffice. --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nenntmichruhigip: This should be handled by your language preference. Which language are you using? For example, if I switch from English to Italian, I get spaces instead of commas. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nenntmichruhigip: Wenn du die deutsche Oberfläche benutzt, dann kriegst du auch deutsche Dezimaltrennzeichen.--Börsensocke (talk) 08:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Translation of Börsensocke's posting for the other users: You can get the german separators by changing to the german interface. Actually I am using the german language preference, and yes it gets even more confusing when changing to english :-) But the german language preference makes the separators not exactly "german" (which would be a small space for thousands), but what's the guideline on the german wikipedia and common in economics(?) (point for thousands). So, yes, changing to french or itanlian makes the numbers nice, but then I don't understand the texts and the search won't find stuff :-) --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #222

WMDE recruiting a PHP backend software developer

Have you ever wanted to join the Wikidata development team? Maybe this needs your attention ;)

Wikimedia Deutschland is looking for a PHP Software Developer to work on programming and maintaining backend functionality of Wikidata and other services. He/she will be responsible for devising, implementing and testing new features in line with the product plan.

You can find all the information here. Don't hesitate to spread the word if you know someone who could be interested!

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Q9176184 to be merged with Q8152009

Q9176184 + Category:Weapons by manufacturer (Q8152009) per similarity. -- 13:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Done. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Property proposals needing comments

Thinking about some properties that have been created recently without much participation on the proposal, I realised that before any requirement for a minimum number of comments could be introduced that we need some way of highlighting property proposals that have been open a while without much input. My initial thought is a page which lists or transcludes them. A bot should be able to add any which meet certain criteria - open >= 14 days AND fewer than 3 unique signatures on the page (i.e. proposer + 2 others) is my initial thinking but I'm not set on these. Humans could of course add any others they come across that need more input for different reasons (e.g. lots of comments but no votes, third opinion needed, etc); to keep the page tidy a bot would remove all closed proposals. I think a page is better than a category as a page appears on watchlists rather than requiring people to look at a category, although I don't object to a category as well. Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

As long as we don't introduce a strict community rule ("must be open X days with at least Y votes") but use it as help to increase participation, I strongly support this idea! -- JakobVoss (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Lymantria (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 Like -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Encouraging more participation would be good, requiring it would be harmful. The essay at en:Wikipedia:Silence and consensus also makes useful points; notenlast "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, this proposal is only about encouraging participation. I believe that requiring it would not be a bad thing, but I am not proposing that here (or anywhere else currently) and arguments for and against required participation are not needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If someone writes the bot to do it we can also add it to the weekly summary every week. Just add it to Wikidata:Status updates/Next. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Unfortunately I do not have the skills required to write a bot, so someone else will need to volunteer to do that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a mere aging report is sufficient. If they haven't been closed after two weeks, it's likely they need further input.
--- Jura 10:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point, although some will be just waiting for a property creator to spot it's been marked [Ready] but their presence on this page should alert them to that if the category hasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have created the first version of the page at Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed. I've used a slightly arbitrary cut-off of 20 July for the starting list, including only those proposals with the latest obvious activity on or before that date. This means there are currently 34 subpages listed (a handful with more than one property proposal on them). As I can't program a bot all updates will have to be manual at this point, I will try to do it but all help greatly appreciated.

Please give some attention to these proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also now Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview --Pasleim (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that Pasleim, I think the two approaches complement each other well. Currently these two pages are linked only from here and Category:Properties ready for creation (where I have just added them). This seems inadequate to get the attention they are intended to, so where else can they be advertised? Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikidata:Property proposal/sound pressure seems to be missing on "attention needed". -- Jura 18:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • The last comment was left on 3 August, the "automatic" inclusion on the list wont happen for a few days yet (yesterday I added all properties with a most recent comment of 27 July or earlier, later today I'll add those with a last comment date of 28 July). However, if you think any property proposal not on the list should be there just add it to the bottom of the list (the intro says "Any user acting in good faith, including the proposer, may add or remove a proposal"). Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      • I don't see why it wouldn't be included automatically. Why this selective inclusion?
        --- Jura 12:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
        • Because this is a list of proposals needing attention, not a list of all proposals. If you want a list of all open proposals see Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview and Wikidata:Property proposal/all. The inclusion criteria are 1. everything that is still open and last received a comment ~12 or more days ago, and 2. any other proposal somebody thinks needs attention. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
          • That's still another set of criteria. It seems rather other that we should edit the list manually. What seems odd is that apparently you think people can consider that a proposal needs attention in "bad faith". The initially stated 14 days seems a good inclusion criterion. Can you expand/limit it to that?
            --- Jura 08:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
            • Anyone can do almost anything in good or bad faith, that very very few people do do it in bad faith doesn't seem relevant here? The list is edited manually because the inclusion criteria demand it - there is no way for a bot (not that anyone has programmed one for it yet) to determine whether something needs input from more people for example - the no comments in X days is automatable though. I also don't understand your point re 14 days, as you started by complaining that a proposal which received a comment 7 days previously wasn't appearing and now you want to exclude more than currently? You seem to want the initial proposal but that also clearly said that "Humans could of course add any others they come across that need more input for different reasons" which you seem to object to? Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
              • My request was to add any proposal that is older than 14 days. No need to exclude those where you commented yesterday.
                --- Jura 19:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
                • OK I now understand what you are asking, and I'll probably move to that if (hopefully when) the number of proposals on the list with the current criteria reduces. It's already longer than ideal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The list of properties needing attention is growing significantly faster than it is shrinking - in the past 48 hours only one proposal listed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Attention needed has received any input but nine more properties have racked up 14 days since the last comment (and many of the last comments are by me). If this list and Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview are not solving the problem of attracting attention to properties that need it we need to start thinking of something different. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Biographical dictionaries (articles, subjects and authors)

We have Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415) for the ODNB. I looked for but couldn't find something similar for en:American National Biography, which has 722 links in the English Wikipedia, not all from articles, but most of them are. The URL is of the form (that URL is for George Meany (Q141704)). I would like to create the property and add it to that item, and also to somehow note that the author of the article is David Brody (Q5231769). Is there a way to indicate that, or do authors have a separate ID number in publications like this? Carcharoth (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you want to link to George Meany (Q141704) through an external ID it's just that. A new property for "article id in the American National Biography (Q465854)" needs to be proposed here. The external identifier would be ..."15/15-01098" I suppose.
It would be "technically" feasible adding author (P50)->David Brody (Q5231769) as a qualifier, but as far as I know storing this kind of bibliographic metadata in external-IDs-statements-qualifiers not a common thing.
In that cases I think we use more something like described by source (P1343)->American National Biography (Q465854), adding as qualifiers stuff like author (P50), volume (P478), page(s) (P304), reference URL (P854), section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) and so on. You can even create an item for the article "George Meany (Q141704)" in the American National Biography (Q465854) itself. Strakhov (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I think I get what you mean by 'described by source' - that is like creating a citation. That data already exists. I wonder if there is a way to create such 'citations' purely from the id numbers? That is, after all, the main use of such id numbers for databases like this. They are collections of articles and the id numbers identify the article about the person. I will have a go at creating a proposal for the ANB ID numbers. Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, to source a particular fact ("add reference"/"citation") you can use 1) stated in (P248)->"item" (article, book, database...) or 2) reference URL (P854)->"" or, technically 3) American National Biography id (P????)->"15/15-01098". You may wanna complement this info with author (P50), retrieved (P813),... too, as I said. It depends. After that, copy+paste with DuplicateReferences gadget to some other 'sourceable' facts. Again, although third option (using external id numbers 'directly' as reference) is "technically" feasible I'd say (from empirical and biased observation) is not a common procedure. Sure there is a reason for that. Or maybe there is not and I just haven't seen enough items. I don't know. Good luck with the proposal! I'm totally in. Strakhov (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Does the page say anywhere that 15/15-01098 is an ID and is supposed to be stable to describe this person? ChristianKl (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I suspect it is an article ID, not a person ID. There are (apparently) plans to extend the OBIN (Oxford Biography Index Number - see Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415)) system to the American National Biography, as it is a publication of Oxford University Press (under the auspices of the American Council of Learned Societies). If you read what it says here about OBIN, they say: "This OBIN is unique to that person; it is thus an invaluable part of any authority record for that person. As we expand the Biography Index, this number should unlock an increasing number of resources, each linked directly and unambiguously through the OBIN. [...] We would encourage anyone compiling a database of people to include the OBIN in each database record." OBINs are ID numbers for the subject of an article. The actual articles themselves also have DOIs, which seems obvious now I think about it, and means there is less of a need to worry about how to handle that sort of data. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
PS. Pinging ChristianKl. See this discussion: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/24#ODNB where it is said that the ODNB property as set up is not yet technically the OBIN (if I have that right?). Or was it originally set up one way and has already been converted? Not sure. I suppose the ANB one could be set up and similarly converted later? Pinging Andrew Gray to see if he is able to say how easy such conversion would be (see also the comment here). Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
There was a bit of confusion between ODNB IDs and OBINs in the early days. At the moment, we have an "ODNB ID" property which is functionally the same as the OBIN, but as Oxford has not yet systematically provided OBINs to anyone unless they also happen to be in the ODNB, this is a bit of a moot point :-)
I would recommend just going with the "15/15-01098"-type article identifier, as this is consistent with the way we handle all sorts of other resources, and accepting that we'll have duplication for some people (eg Washington, below). If Oxford later standardise these into the OBIN, we can get a lookup table from them and it will be fairly trivial to amalgamate. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The other point to make is that some people will have articles across multiple Oxford University Press publications, but only one OBIN number. It is deliberately intended to allow people to access biographical material about a single person across multiple publications. In this case, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Q17565097) and American National Biography (Q465854). See also Oxford Biography Index (Q17037575). Some people have articles in both, some have articles in just one. Also not sure what the 'landing page' will be for people with articles in both. The way we have our URL generation set up, you would only be taken to one of them (ODNB or ANB), or could you be given a choice? Am trying to think of someone obvious who would be in both? Erm, George Washington (Q23) fits the bill. He has OBIN 101061288, and his ANB article is here, with the 'ID number' in this case being '02/02-00332'. No idea how stable that is, though. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

relegated (P2882)

Hello. I need a qualifier for relegated (P2882) to show the championship the team relegated to. For example,

. I need a qualifier for "to". (I have the same problem with promoted (P2881)). Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

  • There is "lower level" and "higher level" that can be applied to leagues. Oddly the season you mention doesn't link to its league and the league doesn't include that property.
    --- Jura 14:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jura Lower level and Higher level are for the league pyramid for the same period.

Another example.

Xaris333 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2881

"Type sports league (Q623109)" violations: Can somebody explain me what is wrong?

Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P393

"Type version, edition, or translation (Q3331189)" violations: Can somebody explain me what is wrong?

Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

At a glance: I have no idea about the first problem. The second one, however, seems to be caused by an improper type constraint on Property talk:P393. If it can be used for events, it should not expect items of version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) or subclasses thereof, which is a term related to books and publications. The type constraint needs to be extended to events, or we need so split P393 to an “event-P393” and a “publication-P393” —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Using this for two things as distinct as publications and event series doesn't really make sense - annual events aren't "editions" of each other! It would make a lot more sense to split out the event uses into a new property. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
+1 —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Once again on the first problem: I tried this, because it seemed as if the Template:Constraint:Type usage on Property talk:P2881 was not done correctly. You need to wait for the next covi page update now… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

participant (P710) or participating team (P1923)

Hello. For a league like 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732) should I use participant (P710) or participating team (P1923)? Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Assuming you aim to add team items here, use participating team (P1923). The other one should IMO be redefined and limited to values of person type, and a discussion about the “inverse constraint” on participant (P710) would also be necessary. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

MisterSynergy See 2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304). I used participant (P710). Is it wrong? Xaris333 (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It is technically not wrong, but participating team (P1923) was later defined and is more specific, it even was specifically made for the purpose you look for. To my opinion you should always use the most specific property available, and only go with the generic ones (as for instance participant (P710)) if there is no other way. Unfortunately, participant (P710)’s talk page still recommends to use it for teams, although there is the other one for more than a year now. So: P710 needs to redefined, as I said, or at least massively updated… But this is a general problem of Wikidata at the current stage. We drown in new properties, and we fail to properly maintain old ones and to define how to use properties correctly. Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

MisterSynergy Thanks. Do you know if I can change the property with a bot? Or to ask for the change? Xaris333 (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don’t think that you can just exchange the property and keep all values. You would probably need to add identical data with the new property, and then remove the old one. I would also recommend to team up with Wikidata:WikiProject Association football, and to define best practices for use cases such as yours within this project. Since association football is a really large topic here, they might also have experience with bots. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all!!! Xaris333 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It can be done by User:PLbot. Xaris333 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to know! Thanks for sharing this knowledge here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

menswear vs womenswear

I just added a picture to the item ferreruolo (Q5445313) and I would like to be able to query the items for menswear vs womenswear. Many clothing items are unisex, but there are lots of specific items that are not. How do I specify that? Thx. Jane023 (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Idea: create structural items “menswear” and “womenswear” and properly define them using P279 and labels/descriptions in as many languages as possible. Then subclass them with subclass of (P279) on the items you want to describe. It would be useful it this is documented at a suitable place, but there is no Wikidata:WikiProject Clothes or something similar yet (see Category:WikiProjects). —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. I think it needs to be more generic though because it would also be nice to have swimwear, childrenswear etc. I think we need Wikidata:Fashion where clothes and jewelry can be sub-genres. I will see what is out there on enwiki first. Jane023 (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
There is already swimsuit (Q212989); and of course there can be multiple P279 statements on an item. So bikini (Q14090) could for instance subclass “womenswear” and swimsuit (Q212989) at the same time. Wikidata:WikiProject Fashion sounds good as well, so if you can gather some two or three more editors…  MisterSynergy (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

ArticlePlaceholder is now live on Welsh and Kannada Wikipedia

Hey folks :)

Just a quick note that we have now rolled out the ArticlePlaceholder on Welsh and Kannada Wikipedia as well. Both project had requested it. Here are 2 example pages:

We are continuing to work on improving it based on the feedback we've gotten so far from the projects that already have it. This includes layout fixes, making it possible to translate an article from another language using the ContentTranslation tool and getting them to show up in search engine results.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I've just clicked on the first link on my iPad, it launched the Wikipedia app and displayed an error message: "The page you requested doesn't exist". — Ayack (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, they really need to limit the URL's that open in the app. It even tries to open the Arbitration Committee wiki in it. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@JMinor (WMF): Can you please have a look? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry this response too so long. Unfortunately its not entirely in our control to selectively open pages in app. Bascially the OS chooses to open the app or web browser by domain, and we basically register to open all * domains (we exclude domains we don't handle, such as meta, wikidata and mediawiki. See this request to exclude special and flow pages from deeplinking if possible: That said, the article placeholder pages should work, as they are not special pages and should be handled as though they were standard articles, so I have filed a specific ticket for that: (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Expediting ID

I think we should expedite the creation of the property proposed in Wikidata:Property proposal/ ID as the Olympics are current.

And we should consider a process for expediting other time-sensitive property proposals in future. Perhaps, three days, at least four supports and no more than one objection, and a notice on this page, with a justification? The bar might be lower for external IDs than for quantitative or relationship properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be some questions about it. If you haven't found it useful before despite proposing dozens of properties, it's not clear why it would be urgent now.
--- Jura 08:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC
One "weak delete" (vs. five supports, at the time of writing) whose concerns have already been refuted. Your latter point is a non sequitur. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
There is disagreement about whether my concerns are sufficient reason to oppose, but they have not been refuted. Questions about why you feel this property should be expedited are directly relevant to this conversation and not non sequiturs in the slightest. You have stated that you think it's important to create it quickly because the Olympics are current, but have not answered the question why that makes it urgent nor why it wasn't proposed earlier. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "Questions about why [a] property should be expedited are directly relevant". I wasn't referring to one. As to the refutations, they're on the proposal page for anyone to see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

As a general case, I think requirements should be something like:

  • A note on the proposal that expedited creation is being sought, with a justification (or link to justification elsewhere)
  • Message left here with a justification that does not result in consensus against expediting
  • All relevant wikiprojects notified of the proposal ({{Pingproject}} is fine for this)
  • Open at least three days after the message at Project Chat was left
  • At least four supports
  • Net support of at least 3
  • No open questions on the proposal
  • All reasons given for opposition responded to

I don't understand why external ID proposals would have a lower bar than any other proposals? Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

ID properties are generally binary decisions with little to debate. The other types often have more nuanced discussion of how best to model data and relationships. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
There's little harm done by adding external ID's in contrast to the harm done by other bad property proposals that lock us into modeling data a certain way. ChristianKl (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Well I've seen some external ID proposals generate debate, e.g. about how to represent them (such as one or multiple properties) and what use they bring and whether they are reliable or not, none of which seem binary decisions to me. The ones that are simple should have no problem reaching the normal bar (which really isn't very high at all) and the ones that aren't shouldn't be held to a lower standard than any other property imo. What are your thoughts though on the suggested requirements presented above? Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I used - deliberately - the phrase "...generally binary decisions..." (emphasis added). I don't support a requirement to notify projects, and your final two points overcomplicate and invite ambiguity, but otherwise your proposals seem OK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Why don't you support a requirement to notify projects? Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
It requires the proposer to be aware of what projects exist, and which might claim interest on a proposal. It leaves the way open for disputes over the latter. It means unnecessary notifications for project members who are not interested in property proposals. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The proposal has been open since 12 August I suggest we create it now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


Wikidata:Property proposal/FEI ID should be expedited for the same reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at this proposal's discussion page regarding this suggestion (before I saw this section). Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Leauge Points system

Hello. Is there a property to show the point system of a championship? For example in association football there were point system like 3-1-0, 3-2-1, 2-1-0. Xaris333 (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge there isn’t something like that. The different point systems could get structural items, but which property can be used here? Template:Sports properties (good overview, but typically not fully complete) does not indicate anything useful here… —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
MisterSynergy We have the item three points for a win (Q1431533). Maybe I will propose for a property. Xaris333 (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Turn off “Did you mean:x?” on Wikidata search


A few months ago it was suggested by Lymantria that search results should not show suggestions. Due to the structured nature of Wikidata the search doesn’t give a useful suggestion like it does on other Wikimedia projects. There were only a few people who commented last time this was discussed. I’d like to ask the community again and make a decision. Should we remove the “Did you mean…” feature from Wikidata?

A few examples to help illustrate:

  • Search for “Danke” suggests “dane”
  • Search for “liter” suggests “liste”
  • Search for “roger” suggests “roller”

Please let me know what you think and I’ll update the task with a decision in a week (or so). Thank you again for your time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I support this, as even searching in English it rarely generates useful results. Even when it doesn't actively get in the way it's just clutter suggesting seemingly random alternatives for correctly spelled English words. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't work correct and if it can't be changed to work correct then turn it of. When you search for Hans Tanke it shouldn't start searching for Hans Table. Especially on a multilingual project like Wikidata it should search for what the user types. Mbch331 (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree but, in the same time, I don't understand why when you type (in French) "Gustave Raulin" you only get Gustave Raulin (Q26252489) (Gustave Raulin) and not Gustave Rauline (Q3121306) (Gustave Rauline)... — Ayack (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

One feature I would like to seek, is the possibility to have different search-boxes for Content (P & Q-namespaces) and Non-content pages (Help/Project/Property_talk/etc-namespaces). It is today often frustrating to do non-content-searches. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Innocent bystander! --Epìdosis 18:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This is true of all Wikimedia Projects and I personally feel your pain. Even external searches (Google) to find meta information can be a challenge. Let me follow up with the search team and see if there's an elegant way to solve this (T142635 ). My personal opinion: Two search boxes in the top right sounds like it might be a little confusing to most people :). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the simplest would be a prefix code that indicates you want to search non-content namespaces, similar to how prefixing a search here with p: indicates you want to search the property namespace only. It would need to be something that is short, doesn't conflict with namespaces, interwiki or interlanguage links and is unlikely to occur in content page titles - "proj:" is my first thought, but that might be confused with searching the project namespace only. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
If you are searching property names (or some property types), it may be helpful to use this tool: --Laboramus (talk) 07:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
As long as such feature is not part of or linkde from the official Wikidata search, such tools are of no use for new or occasional editors -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: It's been a little over a week and the responses here are in favor or removing it (especially if it doesn't work right!). We've created a task to remove it in the near future. Thank you all for discussing this, I appreciate the time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As we're talking about the searchbox on wikidata, I've got a suggestion: It'd be useful to show suggestions (those while typing, not those on the result page) for other namespaces, like it is on onther wikis. I.e. typing WD:Prop would suggest WD:Properties. For the Property namespace it'd be great if those would work simmiliar to those for the item namespace (searching for all alternative names in addition to the ID). Oh, and just noticing it again: What about something like en:MediaWiki:Gadget-search-new-tab for wikidata, or (preferably) making the enwiki/commons gadget work here? --Nenntmichruhigip (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dates in the future

What is the current consensus about including dates that are in the future? I thought that these could always change, so we shouldn't include them. See [12] and [13]. Ping Máté. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, future dates should be accepted for certain porperties, if they have reference (see examples). If they turn out not to happen they can be depreciated (with reference). – Máté (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
In the linked case I think it would make sense to have some sort of qualifer like "sourcing circumstances : planned" and a source of the official announcement of the date. The fact that the date was announced is interesting information. In cases the date change it can then be deprecated. ChristianKl (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Images and image qualifiers

I was wanting to improve the image content for various taxon pages, but need some guidance for what to do. On Wollemia nobilis (Q190510) I already replaced a very poor low-resolution pic with a better one (File:Wollemia nobilis full.jpg), but wanted to add a qualifier like 'young tree' or 'whole plant' (or similar), and then also to add File:Wollemia nobilis M1.JPG with the qualifier 'female part' and File:Wollemia nobilis cone.jpg with the qualifier 'male part'. How do I proceed? Or is there a limit on how many images are wanted? - MPF (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you want to use media legend (P2096) as a qualifier. --Melderick (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
There is media legend media legend (P2096), but this is unstructured data--I think the use case you are looking for, this will be sufficient. From a metadata perspective, you should probably wait for the Commons metadata rollout, coming to a Commons near you SoonTM. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen applies to part (P518) used for this. It's more machine-readable than P2096. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

enabling Wikidata data access in user language

Hello folks,

We're currently working on enabling Wikidata data access in user language. That means that all functionality that we provide, in order to make use of the data on Wikidata, will be using the users language for localization, so that each user can see the content in their set language. That means, that templates and Lua modules currently on functions outputting English values per default, will need to be adopted.

The following things will be affected:

  • The property parser function
  • mw.wikibase.getEntity/mw.wikibase.getEntityObject: Fallback labels/ descriptions in the user's language are included, if there are no labels/ descriptions in the user's language.
  • mw.wikibase.label: Returns labels in the user's language (or a fallback thereof), rather than English
  • mw.wikibase.description: Returns descriptions in the user's language (or a fallback thereof), rather than English
  • mw.wikibase.renderSnak/mw.wikibase.renderSnaks: Snaks will be rendered in the user's language, rather than in English
  • mw.wikibase.entity:formatPropertyValues: The statements will be rendered in the user's language, rather than in English

This new feature is already testable on beta Wikidata and the deployment on Wikidata is planned on August 29. If you encounter any issue, please let us know. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): It didn't even hit me until just now (even though I have the phabricator project on watch)--most clients have implemented the call to the object as providing a link to the object using the object's label, rather than a link to the language-of-wiki's-object label. The change seems highly problematic from that point of view and a week to fix the 100+ modules which have implemented the functionality is... quite frankly, just a bad idea. This needs a wider announcement, likely to the talk pages associated with Module:Wikidata (Q12069631). --Izno (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
(And I might be completely wrong on the scale of the issue, but a week to turn this feature still seems like a bad idea.) --Izno (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: This will only affect Wikidata, this feature is not supposed to be enabled on any mono-lingual wiki. The changes in question are already effective on other multilingual wikis: commons, meta, testwikidata. I hope that helps you judge the impact of this change. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
That's much more sane than I thought. :D --Izno (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

To move certain items from Q741745 to Q26331278

Discussion moved to Talk:Q26331278#Not to be confused with booster (Q741745)
  Done. -- 20:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Mixing up concepts

Should a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) be used together with for example subclass of (P279) and country (P17), like on Abay District (Q364858)? I have a feeling that this causes conflicts and these concepts should be separated. We've had a similar discussion about templates earlier. Ping Infovarius. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No. --Izno (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
But what we should do with pages (disambigs? set indices? lists?) like from ru:Категория:Страницы разрешения неоднозначностей:Населённые пункты? They have obvious properties like "containing settlements with the same name" and I am trying to mark it in Wikidata. --Infovarius (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
They are list or set index, but mark them as disambiguation. This makes no sense because disambiguation page don't must limit the content. The more correct solution is that change the kind of page. --ValterVB (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Apparently (so my understanding) Russian Wikipedia uses disambiguation pages for all sorts of things. As these pages are linked from items with P31:Q4167410, all sorts of statements are added to such items, with the insistance that this "applies to part" ruwiki (a page could include a description of a capital, so the item would receive P31=capital).
    If pages on ruwiki are topical articles that combine various subjects, they should probably go on separate items and use some sort of P31 statement with "set index" and statements linking to the various topics combined. Merely adding this to items that are used for other things makes these items less useful for their original purpose.
    --- Jura 05:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Same as Izno: no. Because a disambiguation item can list every kind of things. If a Wiki have the same disambiguation page but on their page they have also a different thing (for example a movie, a book a band with the same name) how we manage it? If you limit the content of a disambiguation, you have a list like this Lapwing (Q22293794) --ValterVB (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Lapwing (Q22293794) is a good example! Yes, it is called "set index page", but it is a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) too. So I suppose "set index pages" are a subclass of "disambig pages". And these pages also can be regarded as classes (with all appropriate statements), see discussion about greek characters. There are no such type of disambig templates in Russian Wikipedia yet. May be it's a solution - to create such type and move some such "disambigs" to "set indices"? --Infovarius (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
From en help: « A set index article is not a disambiguation page » and « (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name » so no, I don't think that a "set index pages" is a subclass of disambiguation but is a subclass of "list". --ValterVB (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I see what you are afraid of, User:ValterVB, but I think usefullness is above this. See for example Mother (film) (Q4285420). It obviously contains only films. Why shouldn't we mark it as class of films? --Infovarius (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Example: Mother (film) (Q4285420) is a disambiguation on, so it can be merged with others disambiguation item, for example with Mother (Q348342) (don't consider for now that already exist an ru sitelink) but this disambiguation page in en, or it or fr aren't about the movie but are about movie, song, videogame, play so don't have sense add mark it with a class of film. --ValterVB (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why you are speaking about en/it/fr disambigs in Mother (Q348342), while ru:Мать (фильм) is a useful page itself. And it can have specific properties. --Infovarius (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Because it's an example to explain the concept. I said "don't consider for now that already exist an ru sitelink", in this case, normally the page, of "ru:Мать (фильм) would be added to Mother (Q348342). If you want an real example you can see for example at The Great Gatsby (Q398510) the page in it's only a list of the film, it isn't possible add something of different, but if I check on other wiki I can see novel, soundtrack, movie and opera. --ValterVB (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
other examples Submission (Q2361990) Goldeneye (Q398775) Night Train (Q399204) --ValterVB (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A gadget for Wikidata completeness management

Dear Wikidata community,

we are happy to announce the next release of COOL-WD: a Completeness Tool for Wikidata, packed with new features, inspired by the engaging discussion with you all on the first release [1].

The main purpose of COOL-WD is to allow to create and manage completeness information about Wikidata, such as "Complete for all Switzerland's cantons" and "Complete for all of Obama's children". While previously one had to access an external tool to add and view Wikidata completeness information at, now a user script is available to enable adding and viewing completeness information directly inside Wikidata [2].

When the script is enabled, properties annotated as complete are marked by a green box, while all other properties are marked in yellow. To state that a certain property is complete, one can simply click on the yellow box to make it turn green. To add a reference URL for the completeness, one can click the small '(i)' icon next to the property name to add the reference URL. An example screenshot is available at [3].

Several other new features are:

- Completeness analytics: show the progress in data completion wrt class of objects of interest (, example screenshot at [4].

- Query completeness diagnostics: give an explanation (which completeness statements are used, and how) whenever (in)-complete query answers are given (, example screenshot at [5].

- Linked data publication of completeness statements, for instance, RDF description of the completeness statement of all cantons in Switzerland:

- RDF dump of over 10,000 completeness statements in COOL-WD collected from various sources:

Last but not least, a description of these features is to appear as a paper at COLD 2016 Workshop, which currently can be downloaded [6].

The tool is still a prototype, so we very much look forward to your feedback regarding how useful you consider the tool, and your ideas for conceptual or technical improvements!


Fariz, Simon, Rido, and Werner (Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy)







Fadirra (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, what happen if a green statement gets changed/removed ? Maybe the completeness should be marked for review, to see if the modification is a vandalism or a real correction ? --Melderick (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Currently, when a green (= complete) statement is clicked, then it will turn back to yellow (= potentially incomplete). This means basically that the statement is removed. I agree that marking would be a nice feature to add, as well as say a log/history feature for changes wrt. the statement and also voting feature for statements. - Fadirra (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Languages to add

Syriac I want to add the name in original language property to Q203179 for the text "ܥܕܬܐ ܕܡܕܢܚܐ ܕܐܬܘܖ̈ܝܐ" in Syriac, but I cannot add text in syc. Why is this list of values missing so many possible options? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It is possible languages are missing for monolingual text. You can create a ticket for it in phabricator or request addition on WD:DEV. Mbch331 (talk) 13:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge and purge

I noticed the behaviour of the merge gadget changed. It now asks for confirmation after merging to purge the page. This is a bug and I filed Phab:T143435 for this. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikidata:Contact the development team#Purge with confim. --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Reasonator is being weird, giving multiples of family members


Not sure whether its a problem with Reasonator or Wikidata but Reasonator is giving Nelson Mandela 3 copies of every family member.


--John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It is still the only reasonable way of looking at the Wikidata data. Sad to say.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks GerardM (talkcontribslogs), so its a problem with Reasonator? --John Cummings (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
See [14], it doesn't seem to have much attention. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Very helpful, thanks Sjoerddebruin (talkcontribslogs). John Cummings (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Sjoerddebruin (talkcontribslogs) The same can be said of the attention given to usability of Wikidata data. It does not get much attention and Reasonator is far better than anything else that is on offer. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello. Is there a way to find how many unique item are linked to Alki Larnaca F.C. (Q658131) that has for property subclass of (P279) the item Cypriot Cup (Q245970)? Or is there a way to find how many wikidata pages of the articles of w:el:Κατηγορία:Κύπελλο Κύπρου (ποδόσφαιρο ανδρών) are in Alki Larnaca F.C. (Q658131)? Xaris333 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Easy method: Special:WhatLinksHere/Q658131. More complex queries are possible with the Wikidata Query Service, but this would be something you’d need to learn first. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

New Nomination

Hello.Please subscribe to The first Arabic user's nomination on Wikidata.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Query Service to PetScan

Hi, this works in Query Service but it does not work when I copy it to PetScan. How can I run the same query on PetScan?--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The output needs to start with ?item. This is the only output that will be used, so you could remove "label". Sample.
--- Jura 16:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks!--ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Stuff about railways

I've several questions regarding the relationships between railway stations. I'm specifically working with the Pearl River Delta at the moment, but I'm certain these can apply generally.

  1. What would be the appropriate connections to make between Shenzhen Railway Station (Q837327), Luohu Station (Q843947), Luohu Port (Q877115), Lo Wu Control Point (Q23498332), and Lo Wu station (Q15169)?
  2. Is it necessary to have connecting line (P81) as a property of a railway station and as a qualifier to an adjacent station (P197)? (This question also applies to connecting service (P1192).)
  3. In a similar vein, does having one of the aforementioned connection properties require the inclusion of the other?
  4. Should two metro 'lines' be considered 'services' if they share the same trackage at any point? (Here I'm thinking of The Loop (Q2225459) and much of the Washington Metro (Q171221), but also of the concurrency of Line 3 (Q1326495) and Line 4 (Q1326504).)
  5. What's the hierarchy between metro/rail systems, their component lines, and their stations? Are stations part of (P361) lines part of (P361) systems? (Or are stations and lines both part of (P361) systems?)
  6. How would direction (P560) work for rail lines that are in loops? (Should we just pick two or three stations and use them for orientation?)

The property discussion pages are not terribly active, so I'm hoping there's some sort of existing consensus on these matters. Mahir256 (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Try Wikidata:WikiProject Railways. Its mainpage is quite empty (feel free to fill it), but the talk is alive.--Jklamo (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
The simple questions to answer are 3 and 6. For 3, yes, they should be considered separate services if they are presented as separate services in reliable sources (e.g. system maps clearly treat the District line (Q211265) and Circle line (Q210321) as separate services at e.g. Cannon Street station (Q800615) even though they share the same tracks).
For 6, I'd use clockwise direction (Q16726164)/anticlockwise direction (Q6692036) or whichever cardinal direction is travelled in to reach the next station (e.g. the Circle line (Q210321) from Cannon Street station (Q800615) to Mansion House tube station (Q1477336) is west (Q679)), depending what reliable sources describe it as. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
connecting line (P81) is defined as a qualifier, rather than a "main property". Danrok (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Aquarium life

aquarium fish (Q1448518) = "aquarium life" aka "aquarium animals" = "ornamental fish" is a categoría de Wikimedia aka Wikimedia list article? -- 00:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's a subclass of (P279) of fish (Q152), whose topic's main category (P910) is Category:Aquarium fish (Q8084627) and its Commons category (P373) -> Category:Aquarium fish. Strakhov (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

density vs. population density

I've noticed that density (P2054) has been used for "population density" - e.g. Rotterdam (Q34370), Rome (Q220), Lisbon (Q597), etc. Moreover, even worse, it is being used without any unit, so even if one accepted the wrong idea that density (P2054) can mean that, these numbers are still useless as it's not clear what they actually measure. I suspect most of those are produced by User:Titanopedia, but didn't check it.

So, should we have population density property? Should we keep those items around before the property is created and then migrate them? --Laboramus (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

A claim without unit and without source like that in Lisbon#P2054 is not worth migrating! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Another thing: "population density" maybe is related to such a thing as "density" in English. But they are not at all related in other languages. If somebody only familiar with Swedish reads "density":1234 for UK they will finally understand why they meassure weight in "Stones". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Laboramus, Innocent bystander: I don't think we need a property for population density (Q22856). I mean, we already have population (P1082) and area (P2046), did we really need a third property who is just the division of the first two ? The only case I can see is if the source only give the density and not the population and the area, but it seems really very unlikely (or only if the source is bad, and then it wouldn't be a good idea to use it).
Indeed beware langages, I was puzled at first as in French the « densité » *can't* have a unit (as in French, « densité » is a false-friend for relative density (Q11027905)).
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: I am not so sure that it is as simple as "is just the division of the first two". pop-density can be calculated both on the total area and sometimes on the land area. I am currently adding data about Swedish urban areas. The area of these were started to be reported in 1980 and both land and water area was then reported. Since 1990 only land area is measured and the water area is now not regarded as a part of the entity at all. For Swedish Municipalities there are four different areas reported, "land", "sea water", "water in the four great lakes" and "other lakes and watercourses waters". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: sure, you need to to the right division with the right numbers (obvisouly, you don't divide either the 2010 population by the current area if there was a different area in 2010) but still, it's just a division, isn't it ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, in our templates at svwiki, we normally let the template do the division. The tricky part is when the latest updates of population isn't of the same date as the area. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata:Property proposal/population density is currently open, you may wish to comment there. Robevans123 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Policy on Interface Stability: final feedback wanted

Hello all,

repeated discussions about what constitutes a breaking change has prompted us, the Wikidata development team, to draft a policy on interface stability. The policy is intended to clearly define what kind of change will be announced when and where.

A draft of the policy can be found at Wikidata:Stable Interface Policy. Please comment on the talk page.

Note that this policy is not about the content of the Wikidata site, it's a commitment by the development team regarding the behavior of the software running on It is intended as a reference for bot authors, data consumers, and other users of our APIs.

We plan to announce this as the development team's official policy on Monday, August 22.

-- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It might make sense to announce breaking changes with [Breaking Change] or a similar tag, so that it's not required to read all mails that go through the mailing list. ChristianKl (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's sensible. Perhaps we'll add it to the policy. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The policy is now official, see #Announcing the Wikidata Stable Interface Policy. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple items with identical sitelinks

Examples: Q24668011 and Q24668012. Not a good sign. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

see Wikidata:True duplicates --Pasleim (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's a known problem, sadly it's not trivial to fix. The cause is that bots often double post entity creation requests to the API, so that both entities are created at nearly the same time, leading to our uniqueness constraints not working. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Why can't a bot merge items like that automatically? ChristianKl (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

local Wikibase

I'm trying to use Wikibase in my local wiki and I am half way done. But I have problems still (I don't know if it's better to ask at developers forum?):

  • After some change I cannot edit or create claims. Specifically: for creation I click "edit", then I choose right property and get eternal "loading sign" instead of input field; for editing - just nothing happened after clicking "edit". Editing through API with my bot is possible though.
  • How to edit label and description in other languages? I've installed Babel extension, imported LabelLister gadget but nevertheless I see only 1 language.
  • Even in that language I cannot edit label+desc+aliases simultaneuosly: only one of them is saved at a time, then reload of a page is needed to save another.

Can anyone help? --Infovarius (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Hoo man: probably better for a dev to look at this one. --Izno (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Infovarius: I'm quickly replying point by point:
  1. Make sure you are running Wikibase master and MediaWiki master. Do you get any JS errors in this case? If so, please report them.
  2. Installing Babel and editing your user page should be enough. Please note, that you will need to run jobs (run maintenance/runJobs.php in MediaWiki's root directory) in order for your user pages categories to be written to the database, so that Babel can pick them up.
  3. See #1
Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answer. I've installed master version of Wikibase and get "Fatal error: Class 'Wikibase\DataModel\Entity\ItemId' not found in C:\xampp\apps\mediawiki\htdocs\extensions\Wikibase\lib\WikibaseLib.entitytypes.php on line 37". Then I revert Wikibase upgrade.
I've copied MediaWiki 1.27 over my 1.26. Now I see all required labels/desc/aliases(!), but editing leads to error "SyntaxError: Unexpected token < in JSON at position 0".
After rolling master version of Wikibase again I get "Fatal error: Class 'Wikibase\Lib\DataTypeDefinitions' not found in C:\xampp\apps\mediawiki\htdocs\extensions\Wikibase\repo\includes\WikibaseRepo.php on line 300". I revert Wikibase again.
In console I have: 1) Unknown dependency:; 2) ReferenceError: $ is not defined(anonymous function) @ Item:Q2:935 --Infovarius (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Did you run composer update for both MediaWiki and Wikibase after updating them? For MediaWiki you will also need to run maintenance/update.php after applying the update. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that helps! All described problems are gone, thank you! During maintenance/update.php there was an error "Error: 1071 Specified key was too long; max key length is 767 bytes", but I see no problems in functioning yet. --Infovarius (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Property for listing teams than an individual has coached/managed

I was unable to find a property that could be used to specify the sports teams than an individual has coached/managed. I do not consider it ideal to use P:54 in such a context as it relates more to the teams an individual is associated with as a player, not as a coach. Does the property I am looking for need to be created or is there one that I simply have not found yet? Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/head coach of is currently open, you may wish to comment there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I will do so. Lepricavark (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I properly use Population property?

I try to use it but however, it always has a plus minus sign with "1". How do I fix this? MechQuester (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If the number is exact, and there is not a range of valid values, write "+-0" after the digit entered. --β16 - (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing the Wikidata Stable Interface Policy

After a brief period for final comments (thanks everyone for your input!), the Wikidata:Stable Interface Policy is now official.

This policy is intended to give authors of software that accesses Wikidata a guide to what interfaces and formats they can rely on, and which things can change without warning.

The policy is a statement of intent given by us, the Wikidata development team, regarding the software running on the site. It does not apply to any content maintained by the Wikidata community. -- Daniel Kinzler (WMDE) (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #223

Large upcoming data import

Just a heads-up: In 2014, I created ~40K items for Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in the UK. This list has grown to ~44K buildings by now. As discussed here, we are preparing to import the remaining Grade II buildings, using a current list from National Heritage. That would be ~342K new items. You can see an example of what these items will look like at Morgan Hall, The Lawns (Q26263429). Unless there are serious objections, I will commence item creation this evening or tomorrow. The import will be single-thread, so as to not overload Wikidata, and will be bot-flagged (because RC). --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No objections, thanks for these huge donations. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Splendid news. I look forward to working on this important data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Import has commenced after positive feedback :-) View progress here (may be mixed with other unrelated edits). --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating these! Hopefully it will inspire some people to use the geograph image import on Commons to illustrate them. Jane023 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
WD-FIST recently gained the ability to match image-less items and Commons images via coordinates (100m radius). Pure coincidence, surely. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: happy to see that other countries are working on historic buildings too. National Heritage List for England number (P1216) has some constraint violations on Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1216. Do you plan to work on that too? Some are quite easy to fix, like listed buildings in Christleton (Q15979145) where some bot added a bunch of identifiers. Multichill (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I tried to fix some of these in 2014, but someone said since (in this example) I can't make a query of Listed buildings in Christleton (because it is quite hard to automatically find that level of location data), it should stay in there. I do disagree with that; maybe we should try to get village-level information through some combination of the location name in the raw data (which is ambiguous), the larger region (which is not), and the coordinates. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to include the lowest level of admin territory (civil parish) rather than the higher ones of district or county? BTW Christleton is a civil parish... Robevans123 (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Of course it would be better. But on the "lowest level", there are many places that share the same name. And even if a Wikidata search only turns up a single one, how do I know it's the only one, and not just missing items for the others? National Heritage data doesn't come annotated with Wikidata item numbers, you know... --Magnus Manske (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Now trying to use more fine-grained located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). I was careful to get it right, but with these numbers, there is always a chance of some of them being wrong. Nothing that can't be fixed, but be aware just in case. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool - great to have the extra detail. Sorry for the extra work -:) Robevans123 (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The example item doesn't contain "instance of" building. I think it would be great if you assign an instance of to the items you created.
A heritage status can change. It would be good if you add a "retrieved" source qualifier that tells the reader when the statement got created. It would also be helpful if reference url is filled as "" for the example item.ChristianKl (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE This has now been completed. --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

UBERON ID (P1554) should be datatype external id

There's a formatter url for UBERON ID (P1554) but currently the datatype is string, so it doesn't get automatically used. I think it would be benefitial to change the datatype to external id. ChristianKl (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it will work with multiple formatter IDs. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: That hasn't stopped such properties like P:P2182 from being converted. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Property to model that the biceps brachii "flexes elbow"

Currently enWiki displays in its infobox on that the biceps brachii has the "action" "flex elbow". Do we have an existing property to model this relationship? ChristianKl (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I suppose you could say
< biceps brachii > use (P366)   < flexing >
of (P642)   < elbow >
but that seems very cumbersome and may not easily generalise. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That seems cumbersome so I produced a new property: ChristianKl (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How to create a GUIDELINE for specific task or project here?

I was drafting here an Guidelines for external relationships to consolidate discussions and create an help page for new task-force people...

There are some example of that kind of Guideline (for an external task force linking ontologies)? Where the best place, here? Wikiversity?

PS: we are linking SchemaOrg with Wikidata... It is a startup project, and need some consolidation and collective consensus, to achieve the quality levels that we need.

Start a WikiProject. ChristianKl (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Q18396215 to be merged with Q16983762

per similarity of the subjects covered. -- 10:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but you could have merged them yourself. Jared Preston (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
How could I do that? -- 12:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Help:Merge. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
It works! Thanks. -- 12:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

New gadget to sort the statements on items

Hello everybody,

As the sorting of the statements on a item page had issues for a while, I'm glad to annouce that there's now a gagdet for it! Gadget-statementSort.js sort all the statements of an item, based on a properties ordered list.

This gadget have been created by Ladsgroup, using a previous script writen by Soulkeeper. Thanks a lot for your work!

You can now enable this gadget in your preferences. If you have any question about the gadget or if you want to suggest some modifications on the properties list, don't hesitate to ask Ladsgroup or leave a message below.

Bests, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Great gadget! @Ladsgroup: It would be nice if I could completely overwrite the default property list by a self-maintained list in a custom .js page in my userspace. Could you implement something like that? Thanks and regards MisterSynergy (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I made phab:T143383 to keep track of it :) Best Amir (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Is this gadget restricted to special browsers, or what am I looking for? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: No it should work in any browser and statements should be ordered the same way across all items when you enable it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"missing" items for series of ...

Within the realm of serial items. Some items cannot currently be given correct claims for instance of (P31), just because there is no existing class for it.

For example, we do have book series (Q277759) which is fine for books, but we do not have an item for say, a "series of events" which could have sub-classes such as "series of military campaigns".

Currently, we have a lot incorrect claims along the lines of Battles of Khalkhin Gol (Q188925), which is incorrectly claimed as a instance of a battle, despite being a series of battles.

So, I plan to create some suitable items for this. If anyone has any input or suggestions then please do comment. Danrok (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

For Battles of Khalkhin Gol (Q188925) in is a series but in other wiki is a single battle. Before change P31 is necessary to check and split the item. --ValterVB (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Mmm tough problem at first sight. My first though is that "battles" and "series" do not mix very well all the time. Composition seems to be a better fit, if for one reason battles of some war can overlap and have sometime no obvious precedence order. The order might in some way related to a causality sequence, a battle can have been thought by one army because another one have been lost by the same army. A war is composed of several battles, and maybe several "sub-wars" ? A casestudy could be Hundred Years' War (Q12551)     I guess. Does a war is a case of conflict that begins with a declaration of war (Q334516)     and ends with a peace treaty of another way ?
May a war as a consequence cannot be composed of smaller wars and the composition holds at some higher level like an armed conflict that can be composed by some other armed conflict ? Can a battle be composed of smaller battles ?
A lot of questions and no answer, sorry /o\ author  TomT0m / talk page 07:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
The definition of battle is "part of a war which is well defined in duration, area and force commitment". I don't see why a series of battles can't be a battle according to that definition. It's also worth noting that different cultures speak differently about the same event and there's no reason why the English version should have preference. ChristianKl (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Try significant event (P793) --Succu (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
part of (P361) is your best tool here, I think.
"Battle" is a pretty broad term, and a "battle" can include other "battles" - consider Battle of the Somme (Q132568) (1 July - 17 November 1916), which began with Battle of Albert (Q1992231) (1 July - 13 July), then Battle of Bazentin Ridge (Q2634717) (14 July - 17 July), and so on. These can all be "instance of: battle" and part of (P361) of the larger battle. They may also contain smaller events, which might also be labelled battles, or P31:Q6680005 (though I don't think many pages use these yet).
In some cases, battles might also be P361 of a military campaign (Q831663), a connected series of battles - so Battle of Kvam (Q20112888) is P361:Operation Weserübung (Q150939) which is P361:Norwegian Campaign (Q5084679)... and in the grand scheme of things, P361:World War II (Q362). So you can use P361 to go all the way up and down the chain.
In the specific case of Battles of Khalkhin Gol (Q188925), I'd consider whether P31:military campaign (Q831663) is the best way to go - they all fitted together as part of an overall series of battles. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: military campaign (Q831663) Mmm is not this related to only one opponent actions ? A campain is how one side organized its actions imho. So it's in most case not appropriate as a battle is the sum of the actions of both side. It can be even a NPOV problem if you mix the two concept inappropriately. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I picked a bad example, battles and wars are complex to define. Plus, there's the language problem, and the different way things are defined in different languages. Danrok (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Just explicit the definitions you use. It's not exactly a problem specific to wars :) Wikidata should be definition based, not term based. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

creating guidance on the process of importing data into Wikidata

Hi all

I've started a draft of guidance on importing data from external datasets into Wikidata, its very rough at the moment, I would very much appreciate some help.


--John Cummings (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps something regarding sourcing and references? Danrok (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ItemDisambiguation limit at 100

The display limit for Special:ItemDisambiguation is set at 100. In cases of some ordinary names, e.g. John Campbell, this limit may be attained, or nearly so, for what is a reasonable request. In other words using such a page for normal disambiguation may be close to failing, and will fail as more items and aliases are added.

Could the number of hits be displayed? Could there be some fallback to a second page? It is highly desirable that this Special page should function as the global disambiguation equivalent for en:w:John Campbell, for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As a work-around you can use this SPARQL query. --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Using Reasonator for disambiguation is much easier and informative.. Try John Campbell. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Preferred sourcing for imported data already linked in identifiers?

I'm rewriting the script I use to generate items such as Thomas Thompson (Q26689403) to include sourcing. At the moment, every item has a History of Parliament ID (P1614) property, giving a clickable link to the main source. Given this, should I source the individual statements as stated in (P248):The History of Parliament (Q7739799), or as reference URL (P854):(the URL from P1614)? I'm leaning towards the reference URL (P854) approach but thought I'd better check which is preferred. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

ValterVB adviced me to use reference URL (P854) in similar cases, but we'd like to hear other opinions. --Epìdosis 20:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC) I've read again your message: in these cases I've always used stated in (P248) + reference URL (P854); the properties ValterVB adviced me never to use in references are identifiers (in this case History of Parliament ID (P1614)). --Epìdosis 20:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
per Help:Sources#Databases you would need to use stated in (P248):The History of Parliament (Q7739799) and History of Parliament ID (P1614) as source. --Pasleim (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know it. Thank you, Pasleim. --Epìdosis 20:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Epìdosis's recommendation feels much more natural to me. The database approach it seems to require that we tag The History of Parliament (Q7739799) as P31:database, which would be wrong - it's a reference work that we record identifiers for, not a "database" like PubChem. It fits a lot better with the website approach in the section above (P248/P854). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: So what is The History of Parliament (Q7739799) ? Because when I read the label of History of Parliament ID (P1614), I have "identifier on the History of Parliament website". According to that definition we have an online database. Snipre (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Fair point - the difference here is a bit hazy :-). I wouldn't call it "instance of: database", though - and according to the help page that's a key element. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: The first thing is to clarify the status of The History of Parliament (Q7739799): an item can't be at the same time a project and a reference work. Then if we consider that History of Parliament ID (P1614) is the identifier of the online version of The History of Parliament defined as a reference work then we can then follow the recommandations of Help:Sources#Databases. Here we have to better define what we want to link because The History of Parliament is now the same denomination for 3 things: a project (which is an organization), a reference work (published mainly as books) and a website build as a database. Theoretically we should have 3 items, each describing these 3 different concepts. Snipre (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree that "project" and "work" is a little confusing, but it's good enough for the moment (there is a project, it produces a work). We can fall back on only "work", though, if preferred. However, it's not a database nor is it built as a database - unless we define everything online as a database! I'm taking the information from there but I'm transcribing it by hand and then uploading with a script. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "imported"... Andrew Gray (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: No, it's not good enough because if you try just to expand a little the information of The History of Parliament (Q7739799), we will have problems when adding specific properties. Can a project have a author (P50) property ? Can a reference work have a inception (P571) property ? If we follow your reasoning "there is a project, it produces a work", all data present in WD should be stored in the entity (Q35120) item as everything is an entity. We have to create enough items to identify correctly the concepts in order to avoid the current problem of using the same item for different purposes.
Then what is a database ?
* Systematically organized or structured repository of indexed information (usually as a group of linked data files) that allows easy retrieval, updating, analysis, and output of data
* A comprehensive collection of related data organized for convenient access, generally in a computer
* A collection of pieces of information that is organized and used on a computer
So the website can be considered as a database because one part of it at least is composed of structured information accessible by an automatic query. Snipre (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
By this definition, so can literally any website with information on it in an organised form. Wikipedia is a 'database'. I don't think it's a very helpful way of thinking about things, and to be honest I think the arbitrary distinction between 'website' and 'database' made by the help page just causes more confusion. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
If retrieved (P813) is intented to be added too, I'd say using the ID property for sourcing would be wrong, because the date won't be true if the formatter URL changes (?). Strakhov (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
@Strakhov: You have retrieved (and verified) the information stored in the statement at the given date rather than retrieved a particular URL. I can see your point, but I don’t think we should worry about this one. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Just food for thought. Not even sure if it was of the nutritive kind when I wrote it. :) Strakhov (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In this case, the URL and ID property are fairly interchangeable anyway - the ID is a URL slug :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
From what I can see, the use of such properties like History of Parliament ID (P1614) in the references makes stated in (P248) redundant! In the page of P1614, there is a subject item of this property (P1629)-claim that links to The History of Parliament (Q7739799). That chain of relations is probably enough to describe this. In fact, that relation have we used on svwiki, when we decipher the references here at Wikidata. See for example note 1 at sv:Adelaide av Bourbon-Orléans. The use of both P248 and P227 here now gives two links to "Gemeinsame Normdatei", one of them are obviously redundant here, and I think it is P248! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: No, stated in (P248) is not redundant because it gives you directly the item where you can find additional properties if needed. Without stated in (P248) you have to first retrieve the item connected with the property and then you can retrieve the data you want. If you take the time to look ãt the current templates used in the different WPs to cite sources, you can see that most of them require much more data than available in the sources section below a statement. So better to provide from the beginning the most related items of a source in order to reduce queries. Snipre (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Carcharoth:. He was interested in this stuff two weeks ago. Strakhov (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, no idea what I can usefully say! Am following it with interest, though. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


Demonstrating the options - all on an item which already has History of Parliament ID (P1614):1790-1820/member/thompson-thomas-i-1767-1818

Just P248 - item link to work
Just P854 - reference URL
P248 & P854 - item link and reference URL
P248 & P1614 - item link and property with identifier
According to Help:Sources, for a "database"

This structure avoids any change of the source structure in case of URL modification (if the URL change, you just have to correct the URL in the property History of Parliament ID (P1614)) and allows a nice link where the long URL can be hidden below the title value when using the source in Wikipedia (everyone prefers to see something like that Thomas Thompson instead of that ).

I'm reluctant to use P1476 here because it would involve a lot more effort (I'd have to call up and scrape a few thousand pages to get the title phrase for each statement), but I accept that's not a very good argument against it ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
A year ago I wondered why a title (P1476) is at all necessary, since one could simply use the item’s label as a reasonable title for instance. However, User:Snipre came up with a convincing argument on Help talk:Sources: there are “Bonnie and Clyde problem”-like situations with Wikidata items and external database entries that do not have a 1:1 equivalence, and thus a Wikidata label is not necessarily identical to the title of a corresponding database entry. This does indeed require extra effort, but I think it is worth to do this work. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
At some point I'm going to scrape all of these and do a lot of processing for a different part of the project. I might leave off doing P1476 for now and then go back and add it to all the relevant qualifiers in one go when I'm processing the pages anyway - that would simplify the item-creation work for now and allow me to get that part completed. (I still have ~11000 to go!). Andrew Gray (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up questions

This is somehow related to the above discussion, thus I put it here. The structure of references is important to give data users (e.g. in Wikipedias) the ability to easily generate references based on our data. They (a) need to find all relevant information for a valid reference (e.g. in en:Template:Cite web), and (b) expect to find that information in always the same structure (i.e. our references are always composed of the same properties). However, we have a couple of different reference structures defined in Help:Sources (“Database”, “Webpage”, “Book”, etc.) and I have two follow-up questions:

  • How can one see which reference structure is actually used in a particular case? Take all properties and decide whether they form something useful?
  • Is there any technique known to query “incomplete” sources here at Wikidata, e.g. by using the Wikidata Query Service? This would be useful for reference maintenance.

I would be happy to hear about your ideas. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

  • One large problem with adapting Wikidata-references with templates like "Cite web" is that we here technically allow 17 reference URL (P854) inside the same reference. (Nothing is technically stopping that option.) And no template on any Wikipedia is adapted to that. The template we use on svwiki in the article sv:Adelaide av Bourbon-Orléans (which I mention above) on is adapted to any number of reference-url's. The references will look very strange, but they are fully readable, all 17 of them. This template is not based on any present template, it was instead adapted to the open framework we have here on Wikidata. It has many flaws, but it is a start. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Are there any use cases for multiple reference URL (P854) (or identifier statements) in a single reference? Can’t we define those references as “technically invalid references” and make them show up on maintenance lists? Who picked the number of 17 and why? —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not know if multiple P854 is a big issue, and it should probably be regarded as something that has to be maintained. I have at least seen references with two valid urls. My point is that unexpected use of properties are to be expected in our references. It is a good intention to maintain those, but my experience from Wikipedia and from our contraints-lists here at WD is that these maintainance-lists tends to be longer and longer by time. We have to take into consideration that we never will fix them all. One of the most common use of references here is the cases when an url is all that is found in the reference. If the webpage is in Armenian or the webpage is dead, very very few of us can set a "title" to such a reference. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
unexpected use of properties in references — I really feel uncomfortable with such a guideline, although I admit that it might be the best we can reasonably achieve here. I’m from dewiki, whose community is extremely skeptical about Wikidata, and at the moment they say: “There are no references at Wikidata, so we don’t use it!” Once we’ll get that right I see them saying: “Wikidata references are useless and messy, so we don’t use it!” —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Frankly speaking I can say that the use of data from WD by WPs is often the last problem of several contributors in WD. Just think about the continuing import of data from WP into WD without original sources or the different games which help to add data to WD but without adding the source too. Snipre (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The closing of RFC without a summation is not a good practice

I find it unhelpful and both a little pointless and disappointing that some of the Wikidata:Requests for comment are simply closed as "no consensus" without a summation of the viewpoints. Where a conversation has taken place and someone is moved to close it, I see true value in the closure to explain the alternate viewpoints, and why how that person closing the discussion has determined the position of the community. People have invested in putting their points of view, and if someone cannot take the effort to summarise, then what are they doing closing the discussion? An open discussion is not problematic, it just looks untidy to some.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That is why lot of people fear to close RfC, as result there were open RfC for more than one year. I think that there is no benefit from RfC being open so long, as situation may change during the time. So I support timely closing RfC, even with no consensus result (and without a summation of the viewpoints). --Jklamo (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hierarchical data examples

I am trying to find how hierarchical information is stored in wikidata? Most of the Olympics Sports pages have a Tournament Draw or Bracket like this or this. I would like to add this "who played who, at which stage" info, but I am a bit confused whether such info gets stored. The docs say lists and infoboxes are the main focus, so is this something that will be handled later? If its already being done could someone please point at a tutorial or examples for a beginner. Thanks! Quil1 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You could create an item:
Label: "W-j Kim vs. R Ega Agatha in round of 32 of the Archer at the 2016 Summer Olympics"
instance_of: "archery contest round at the Olympics"
participant: "W-j Kim"
participant: "R Ega Agatha"
is_part_of : "round 32 of the Archer at the 2016 Summer Olympics"
succeeds : "R Ega Agatha vs M Nespoli in round of 16 of the Archer at the 2016 Summer Olympics"
follows : "W-j Kim vs. G Sutherland in round of 64 of the Archer at the 2016 Summer Olympics"
follows : "R Ega Agatha vs. Y Xing in round of 64 of the Archer at the 2016 Summer Olympics"
This follows/succeeds? pattern stores the data in a Wikidata friendly way. However at the moment there's no easy way to integrate such data into Wikipedia. It's also possible that there are more specific properties than the one I listed here. ChristianKl (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the reply. I have been wondering how to do this and was thinking along the lines of your suggestion. The whole thing does seem hard. And being new here maybe I should just pick something simpler to start with. Ideally there needs to be an Item (or a wikipedia page) for each MATCH containing round/tournament/score/winner etc. Round being a substitute for your follows/succeeds model. I am not sure but I think it would automatically create the linkages. So I was looking around and I found Match Box Templates for many sports eg - [15] [16] But not many sports have individual match pages (probably just too much data). That said lot of the data is found in these brackets and draws. So I am thinking I will pick a small tournament and start creating the items. Slowly going through the all docs to learn how to do that. I think it would be a great if through SPARQL one could run queries like - who played the semis of the 2015 Wimbledon or what was Federer's path through the US Open etc as lot of the info already exists in these pages. Quil1 (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
More a general comment: There is a Wikidata:WikiProject Sport results, but it is not very well developed. At this point we do not have an established concept how to add sports results to Wikidata, so you either need to develop something by yourself which might be superseded at some point in the future with a different approach, or you have to wait for a situation at which things are further developed by others. To my own experience there is still enough work to do on a much more basic level: make sure that sports persons, tournaments, organisations, venues, equipment, general items, etc. are properly defined, labelled, and linked to each other. Without such a robust data base it’d probably be difficult to model sports results anyway. Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I think thats what I was looking for and looks like someone has proposed matches Will follow up with them to see whats going on. Thanks! Quil1 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Weird connection

I have commons:File:Commuters, who have just come off the train 1a33849v.jpg and commons:File:Commuters, who have just come off the train 1a33849v (cropped).jpg watchlisted on Commons. Every time an edit is made to Q61 (Washington, D.C., which has nothing to do with the files), it shows up on my Commons watchlist as being connected to these two files. I can't figure out where the connection was made, why it was made, or how to remove it. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Both of them have the template "Institucion:Library of Congress", whose location is Washington, D.C. (Q61). Strakhov (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Here you can uncheck Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist. "All or nothing", I guess. Strakhov (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
So changes to a wikidata item linked in a creator template that is used in those file pages show up on a watchlist under those files? That doesn't seem to make sense - there is not a direct link made anywhere from the wikidata item to the files. If I change a template on commons, that change doesn't show up in my watchlist under all the files that use the template. Perhaps I'm just ignorant of how wikidata works in this regard. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Wikidata weekly summary

Hi, even if this discussion is about translation, I prefer to talk about that here rather in Wikidata:Translators' noticeboard. So, if Matěj Suchánek does not read here, he could be interested. My question is rather simple, as Wikidata is a multi-language project, would it be possible to translate the Wikidata weekly summary before they are published so that, user can read them in their native language? I know that TomT0m do this work on French Wikipedia a posteriori so I wonder if it would be possible, first technically, to translate these news a priori. If so, would it be possible for users registered here to receive this summary in their preferred language if the translation has been done in this language? Pamputt (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I know the parsoid/wikitext team does a call for translation before publishing their status update, but I don't know how they dispatch it. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Do you know the page where we can find this call? Pamputt (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Recieved it in my mailbox for some reason, after a bit of digging it's visual editor team, not parsoid, and the mail can be found on the internet : author  TomT0m / talk page 19:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We could re-implement the logic of Tech News distribution. But if we really do, we need to overhaul the way the weekly summary is composed at first. Perhaps linking from the English weekly summary which gets distributed to a translated version would be sufficient.
Note that we were able to translate several status updates in 2014. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Another information, what I am asking for already exists for Tech news. Pamputt (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Translate exists on this wiki, so it is technically possible to have the newsletter in multiple languages, and delivered in multiple languages, as you have seen with Tech News. The issue is always going to be timeliness of the production, the translation, and then the delivery.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
And the wasted time that could be used for translating help pages and other stuff. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedbacks on this topic. I'm currently working on improving the Weekly Summary, from the content to the technical issues, and I'll be glad to hear your feedbacks and ideas about this :) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not necessary, imho. --Molarus 09:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Molarus: I did not get what you think is not necessary. If you mean about the translation of weekly summary, I think we are not the good person to judge about this question since we understand English. If people want to translate the news then it is only a matter of technical issue. Pamputt (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

qualifiers for P2046?

When I add area (P2046) from censuses, I always add "as of" as qualifier, since it often change by time. I am aware that many other use of P2046 does not need a timestamp. But I think it would be nice to see a mandatory use of this qualifier for administrative units and populated places. It is of course less useful in many other items.

It is at least worth discussing. What does the statistics look like for qualifiers for P2046 today? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not "begin date" and "end date" (or is "as of" just an alias for "date"?) ? Or even some new items if we consider the name is not enough common information to qualify to places as identical and that places with different borders imply different places. Administrative units can be tricky : they are both an administration and a place. Some change in the law of the state can justify to create a new item (on the same spirit - a significant change in the role of the administration can justify the fact we consider it's a new entity). author  TomT0m / talk page 14:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
To Swedish municipalities, the most common reason to changes in area are probably updated measurements. Digital land survey was maybe invented decades ago, but it is still under implementation. The borders maybe not technically have changed for decades, but they have not been very well measured. The changes in area in the end of the 19th century was probably even larger, since we in some areas didn't had very good maps at all, especially not in sparsely populated areas.
When it comes to urban areas, they are very special. They are defined "as of 31/12" every five years. That is what I have mostly worked with the last weeks.
Laws are often changed gradually, that makes it difficult to see what changes are "significant". In the 19th and the first half of the 20th century we had many kinds of municipalities in Q34. In 1952 that was changed, the same law was now applied to most kinds of municipalities. But it was not until 1971 every municipality was renamed from "X City/Market town/Rural municipality" to "X Municipality".
What is most significant, that the law changed, or that the name changed? According to sv.wikipedia, it is the change of names. But that is maybe natural, since they normally split subjects based on their names. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

HarvestTemplates issue

Sometimes, when I am suing HarvestTemplates, I get the error "WQS query expired". What causes that, and is there any way to fix it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ask Pasleim, it's his tool. Mbch331 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite obivious what causes that. HarvestTemplates makes several queries during loading which may run for longer than 30 seconds, thus expire (happens for properties with many values or classes with many subclasses). So this is rather problem of Query Service. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia corpus to Wikidata

Extracting data from corpus is a very promising and challenging problem, many research teams around the world are working on this problem, some of the examples: creating a module that make diagnose of a disease by scanning medical corpus, creating a voice assistance and much more. Wikipedia “as source of corpus” while wikidata is the “structured data” of that corpus. Offers a great environment to approach this problem.

Before getting into the details of this problem, I am interested to know how open is the Wikidata community to this problem? --GhassanMas (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata imports a lot of information from Wikipedia already. In general Wikidata prefers to have data that cites sources from outside of Wikipedia.
Additionally there are the projects and that try to extract facts via machine learning and provide it to the PrimarySource tool where WikiData editors can approve or disapprove suggestions from the machine learning algorithms.
If you are an academic working on extracting facts from corpus data there's a good chance that you can work well with Wikidata, but it's worth to first understand the structure of Wikidata and how it plays with the Primary Source tool. ChristianKl (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
It is important to understand that the Primary Source tool is something that is not used for importing Wikidata and many other sources by the Wikidata community. Understanding this difference is vital. The biggest problem is not getting data into the PMS but finding people to consider the data in there. The statistics prove that the PMS is dysfunctional. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not used" doesn't seem to be what the statistics says. It doesn't get used as much as desired but it still get's used. Even if only a subset of the data is evaluated by humans, an academic group that provides data via the primary sources tool can expect to get some feedback over what claims get approved and rejected.
I consider the PMS a work in progress. With increased data there's a higher probability that when I browse an item the PMS will suggest a statement or reference that I find valuable to add.
More data also means that there are higher returns to improving the UI of the PMS and thus improving usage. ChristianKl (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, when you consider the number of statements approved and the process whereby this happened you would not say this. I regularly "approve" info from Freebase on the basis that it is likely correct no verification happens and consequently the statistics do not only show little traffic, it does not show either that there is a meaningful process going on. Thanks GerardM (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The numbers seem like currently there are 180000 approved statements and 50000 disapproved ones. That means that both approving and disapproving happens. Giving the amount of data in Wikidata I think you can plausibly argue that this isn't a lot of activity but it isn't nothing. There's also work on making the UI better. ChristianKl (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I add Freebase statements because I pity the effort that went into Freebase. I add a lot of them, I also remove statements that became redundant.. Never, mind. The biggest issue you fail to address is the lack of process going on. Is there or is there any meaningful validation in the PMS.. For me that answer is obvious. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Extracting properties from Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage, the wiki travel guide, has recently begun linking to the Wikidata item of every museum/park/hotels/etc (for those having a Wikidata item).

Each item has very detailed information, and often the Wikidata item has almost no information. So: Anyone willing to create a bot that copies information from Wikivoyage to Wikidata? :-)

Example: Grand Hotel Beijing (Q10902432) only had a single statement when I linked to it, whereas the Wikivoyage item has much more details:

| name=Grand Hotel Beijing
| alt=北京贵宾楼饭店; Běijīng Guìbīnlóu Fàndiàn
| url=
| email=
| address=35 East Chang'an Street (东长安街35号; Dōngchángānjiē)
| lat=39.90743
| long=116.40279
| directions=Two blocks E of Tiananmen Square
| phone=+86 10 6513 7788
| tollfree=
| fax=+86 10 6513 0049
| checkin=
| checkout=
| price=Listed rates for doubles ¥3,450-14,950, discounted rates ¥765-10,500, breakfast ¥184
| content=Five-star hotel located in a traditional building in a small street overlooking the Forbidden City. Rooms with free internet except for the cheapest ones. The rooms are 32-66m2 except for the very most expensive, which is more than 100sqm. Business center, gift shop, ticket office, fitness, pool and sauna available. Chinese and Western restaurants as well as coffee shop, bar and room service.

What Wikidata could reuse: English name, country, name in the local language of the country, website, address, coordinates, phone/email/fax.

Conveniently, the Wikivoyage items and their properties are available for download as a nice big CSV file. Cheers! Syced (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

If you already have it in CSV, you can use QuickStatements, I think, to get started. --Izno (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
All I have is Wikidata QIDs and properties. QuickStatements does not seem to accept Wikidata QIDs as a first column. Syced (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Syced: Just leave the top field empty, and it will! – Máté (talk) 05:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed that works, thank you :-) Syced (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
You may also have a look at HarvestTemplates. --Pasleim (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
The templates are already harvested, using a dedicated tool that understands all intricacies of Wikivoyage, so HarvestTemplates won't help here. Syced (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Inquire about "AWB"

Hello.Why "AWB" is unavailable here?It is very useful.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

a) what you would like to do with AWB here on Wikidata? Real use-cases, please, not something like "maintain Wikidata" or "make some edits", which doesn't say anything about what you want to do. Wikidata works pretty differently from other wiki projects, we have specific tools for editing Wikidata. b) AWB works on "normal" wiki-pages, like this or talk pages. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Ask maintainers. It could be useful eg. on property talk pages but that's all. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: because AWB is more aligned with a flat text (free text) area— primarily regex text replacement, or some decision trees for disambiguation — whereas Wikidata is a completely different data structure (see Wikidata:Glossary#Claims and statements). AWB would work fine in the flat namespaces like user, user talk, wikidata, but cannot do the data calls. It is simply the wrong designed tool for working in the Q: and P: namespaces.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Edgars2007, Matěj Suchánek, billinghurst:Do you see that "specific tools for editing Wikidata" is better than a copy of AWB suitable for Wikidata?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
As we already have said to you, Wikidata is completely different. To get AWB work in main and property namespace, it would need a complete rewrite, not just some small adaption. If you don't give an answer to 'a)' part of my first post in this section, I don't see any reason for continuing this discussion. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Edgars2007:I'm talking about usage generally not in a specific thing.Thank you for everyone --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

IRC spamming and bans?

Hi all, it is probably related to the spamming the #wikidata channel on was seeing yesterday, but I can no longer join the channel. Did everyone now get preemptively banned?? --Egon Willighagen (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified users are not allowed to enter the channel until further notice, to avoid this now and in the future: please register your nickname. Sorry. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I already expected something like that (+10 for confirming). So, to all who run in the "ban" message when trying to join the Freenode channel, register and/or identifier your nickname. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

List generation input

Hello folks,

The Wikidata development team is currently working on tools to improve list creation on Wikipedia, based on Wikidata data.

In order to understand what could be useful for you and why, we suggest you three examples of user scenarios, in which you could recognize some of your current uses: how do you currently edit some lists on Wikipedia, which tools or processes do you use, and what can be improved.

You can answer some short questions and add comments on our assumptions on each related talk page. This input is very important to help us understand how you edit the lists on Wikipedia, and what tools could be useful for you.

Thanks to all of you who will take a few minutes to answer our questions! Jan Dittrich (WMDE) (talkcontribslogs) Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Changing the position of "type" and "datatype" in the JSON?

Currently, the "type" and "datatype" properties are placed after "datavalue" / "value". This makes it quite cumbersome to parse the JSON file when I'm streaming it, as I only know the type of the value after having already read it. Would it be possible to put "type"/"datatype" before the value? That way I could simply switch on them and handle the value correctly. Interestingly, the documentation mentions them in the proposed order, not in the currently implemented one (in the description, not the examples). I searched for issues or other pointers whether this was already proposed, but couldn't find anyting. Any pointers and feedback welcome. --Joe 776 (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no order in JSON object keys. Please prepare your tool for random key order or it will likely break some time in the future. -- JakobVoss (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I just learned of the Wikidata Toolkit. That saves me a lot of the manual work. Thanks for that quick reply! --Joe 776 (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #224

Unsourced and Wikipedia sourced P91 statements

What to do with unsourced and Wikipedia sourced sexual orientation (P91) statements? This really troubles me. The property has been used 3613 times, 2824 don't contain sources. Don't know how much have Wikipedia as source. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

613 has imported from Wikimedia project (P143). Count. --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Maybe there is the same problem for religion (P140) --ValterVB (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If no source, delete. Snipre (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
No: If no source, find one and add it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
We can't add sensible data on person without source. If some users add this data but don't add source makes an error. I think that the data is to be deleted. --ValterVB (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If there is no source and the claim is plausible then look for a source. If you find a source, add it. If you don't find a source after looking and the claim is contentious or potentially so and/or your search was extensive and thorough then remove it. If the claim is not plausible, remove it. We really need a way of flagging the remaining cases where someone has done no or only a cursory search. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Nobody can force someone to look for sources, but Wikimedia Foundation, on biographies of living, asks you to add the sources, so if there are no sources for these data should be deleted. We can't keep sensible data indefinitely without source. --ValterVB (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
+1. WP require sources and WD aims to provide sourced data, so if people don't want to play the game, their contributions have to be deleted as useless and potentially subject to conflict. Snipre (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
So by this logic all statements on items about living people without a reference should be deleted (maybe except external IDs). I see no point in singling out this specific property. If it has to go, all does, or we accept that statements need to be decided about one by one (like Thryduulf said). And—still by this logic—the possible automatic statement deletion would not concern items about people who have passed away (still, talking about all properties, not only P91). – Máté (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Not all the data are problematic, but certainly the data regarding religion or sexuality are more delicate and must be sourced. --ValterVB (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'd add at least age, gender, residence, ethnic group, birth name etc. to the list of potentially just as sensitive data as sexual orientation and religion are. – Máté (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it is possible to define different priorities for properties in terms of how required sources generally are. Something like religion is pretty high up in most cases (I don't think it vital that a Catholic cardinal has source for religion, a US presidential candidate on the other hand probably is), however a handedness (P552) statement is almost never going to be controversial and so I don't think we should remove them without having looked for sources. External identifiers are almost always going to be self-sourcing, so we can treat them as completely uncontroversial. I'd suggest levels:
  1. always required, will be deleted if a source is not provided within a short time of the statement being added (should only be used for a very few properties and almost never when used for deceased people);
  2. almost always required, will normally be deleted when applied to living people or recently deceased people if a source is not provided but exceptions are possible based on common sense, especially for deceased people. (more than level 1, but not too many)
  3. Should be provided, statements should be accompanied by a source but they will not be routinely deleted without consideration of the circumstances (this should be default for non-external id properties)
  • low priority, statements should be accompanied by a source but they will not normally be deleted unless verification has failed or the statement is both implausible and applied to a living person (only things that will rarely be controversial should be at this level)
  • self-sourcing, no independent source is required (probably only applies to external identifiers). Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
we need a team to source statements. the people who periodically drive by and suggest statement deletion, are not collaborating and improving the data. "so if people don't want to play the game", they can take their deletion game elsewhere. there is no consensus for required references. Slowking4 (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
other self-sourcing statements are bibliographical data of Books or Texts, when the item is linked to the source (on wikisource for ex.). It seems very irrelevant to say that "Title" is so and so, and source on... the Book itself, which would be linked in the wikisource link... :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
From the last dump, claim without source:

I think that is necessary delete them --ValterVB (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Iff they cannot be sourced then they should be deleted. But how about creating a list of items that need sources finding - in many cases I suspect that there will be a source in one or more of the attached Wikipedia articles that just hasn't been copied to here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, an anonymous user keeps adding unreferenced claims for sensitive properties. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New gadget: currentDate

Hello everyone,

A new gadget has been added to our collection, this one (currentDate) automatically fills in the date of today when you use retrieved (P813). This one seems a perfect candidate to be enabled by default, we only need consensus for it. Thanks to TMg for creating this gadget!

Greetings, Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems a very useful gadget. Support making it default. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree. Robevans123 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I often add a "past date" to this property, but I still approve this! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
JFDI applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
at last ! I"ve been waiting for this soooo long !
support making it default too ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Support making this default. - PKM (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Should Wikidata link to NSFW websites?

I clicked on "Random Primary Sources item" and the Primary Sources tool directed me to Puma Swede (Q1069901). The Primary Sources tool suggests links to PornHub and xvideos. Should those websites be recommended as sources by the Primary Sources tool? ChristianKl (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless the fact they are NSFW (I think it's not that important), they are not by any means reliable sources (as most of its content is probably user generated/uploaded porn videos (there are "log-in/create account" buttons in both webs and videos are uploaded by user accounts). And, consequently, a lot of videos would be copyright violations. Using sources like these in "BLP" Q's is not ideal either. I'd remove both pages from the tool. Also, they seem useless for sourcing statements even in porn Q's. Strakhov (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a backlist at Wikidata:Primary sources tool/URL blacklist that these should probably be added to. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I added them to the list. ChristianKl (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): "backlist" or "blacklist"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Blacklist. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
To answer the question in your subject heading: yes, per en:WP:NOTCENSORED (which we we do well to adopt, or at least adapt, here). Furthermore, NSFW where? USA? Singapore? China? Iran? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Something being Not Safe For Work does not depend that much on the country, but on the company someone is working in. :) Strakhov (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think not crawling a specific source with StrepHit means censorship. It still feels a bit like an excuse to say that the only reason to have pornhub in the blacklist is that it's UGC but I'm okay with that decision. To what extend can pornsites who aren't UGC be reputable sources? ChristianKl (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well even porn sites that are UGC are reliable sources for information about themselves. A non-UGC porn site with biographies of the models they employ will probably be a reliable source for that model's career as a porn model. If a website has a page about each model with a bio and links to where they feature then that might be a useful external ID? (I don't generally work in this topic area so I'm unsure what sources are typically used) Other that it will probably need to be a case-by-case assessment of the reliability of what information is actually presented on the website. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
As an answer to the starting question, I think that the only things Wikidata should categorically not link to is material that is illegal in the US (the jurisdiction where the WMF is legally based) and maybe Germany (where WMDE is presumably legally based). Everything else should be judged based on it's reliability and utility for the purpose we want to use it for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK if I create an item for each embassy and consulate?

Is it OK if I create an item for each embassy and consulate? Or would that be too many items? Each item I have the host country, sending country, address, phone number, and sometimes website and email. In total that would probably make about 5000 items.

The information is currently stored on Wikivoyage like this. Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

In general 'too many items' on Wikidata isn't a concern if the items that you create contain information from reputable sources.
What's more of an issue with embassies is that Wikidata currently has no "host country" and "sending country" properties. We either need to create them or create a qualifer for the country (P17). ChristianKl (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Have a look in the archives of this page for previous discussions about this (there are at least 2 maybe 3). I think operator (P137) and operating area (P2541) were involved but I can't remember the detail off the top of my head. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Properties do exist, actually, here are the relevant ontologies: Wikidata:WikiProject International relations. Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that's great. Currently it seems items like don't fill operator the way they should according to the proposal, so I thought the property doesn't exist. Now, it seems it's just work to apply the agreed upon properties and it would be great if someone would do it for the sake of both wikivoyage and Wikidata in general.ChristianKl (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
ChristianKl: I tried to apply the ontology to Embassy of Mongolia, Berlin (Q18180367), would you mind checking whether I understood the ontology correctly or not? If yes, I will try to fix the other embassies (query) and consulates (query), then import the data from Wikivoyage. Does it sound OK? Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Your edit is mostly great. When it comes to located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) it's generally better to use a more specific administrative level like the city then the country. [User:Thryduulf] edited it in this case. It this case Pankow (Q4707648) would be the most specific level available, but putting in the city is generally good enough especially in cases where you deal with foreign cities where it's not trival to find out the lowest administrative level available. It great to see someone clean up the embassies :) ChristianKl (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirects on Wikipedia are not processed in Wikidata

When a Wikipedia article gets redirected in any language, the link to the original article remains in the respective wikidata entry e.g. (e.g. Q175854, where the sitelink to the german Wikipedia is redirected from "Phobie (Psychiatrie)" to "Angststörung"). It can make sense to maintain that link. However, when one tries to do updates to the original wikidata entry, the api returns the following error message:

 The link <a class="external text" href="">dewiki:Angststörung</a> is already used by item <a href="/wiki/Q544006" title="Q544006">Q544006</a>. You may remove it from  <a href="/wiki/Q544006" title="Q544006">Q544006</a> if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic.

This suggests that one should remove the original wikipedia link from the relevant wikidata entry. This is doable if you speak the relevant language and maybe with some effort if its in an unknown language that uses the same writing system as the languages you know. However, when it is in a language that uses a different writing system, it is too much to ask, unless it is okay to simply delete without inspection. Any advise on how to deal with this issue, would be appreciated? Would it be possible to automatically update sitelinks in wikidata once wikipedia merges/redirection happen? --Andrawaag (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that a fundamental constraint of wikidata is that each Wikipedia article can be linked to only Wikidata item and vice versa - i.e. there is the assumption that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Wikipedia articles and concepts, but this is not the case (search for "Bonnie and Clyde problem" for more background). So, if the destination article already has a Wikipedia link then you will not be able to add a second one. Leaving the site link attached to the redirect is a workaround that maintains incoming interwiki links (e.g. if the de.wp article is merged, the merged article can still be found from en.wp but not vice versa). Hopefully this wont remain the case forever, but I don't think a fix is coming in the short term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
The main problem is to separate the intensional from the unintensional redirect-sitelinks. On svwiki a lot of bot created articles are merged. Sometimes the related sitelink can stay, since it is about a identifiable concept. Other times they (the sitelinks) are nothing but duplicates, that should be deleted. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The principal problem I come across is the constraint that in a Wikidata entry, I cannot create a link to a redirect on en-wp. The "improved version problem" is a variant of the "Bonny and Clyde problem", but is much less likely to be a function of which Wikipedia you're working on.

There is a video game engine called "Source" which has been superseded by an improved version called "Source 2". The differences are nowhere near sufficient to justify separate articles, so Source 2 is just a redirect to a section in the "Source" article: en:Source (game engine)#Source 2. However, that's no reason not to have a Wikidata entry for Source 2 (Q21658271), and we can add software engine (P408) to a video game using the "Source 2" engine like Dota 2 (Q771541). That's just fine for Wikidata, but it won't allow Source 2 (Q21658271) to create a link to the redirect Source 2 on en-wp. So, when we want to fetch the Wikidata value for software engine to put into the en-wp infobox for en:Dota 2, we find there's no sitelink to pick up.

The only viable solution is to turn the en-wp redirect into an article temporarily; make the sitelink on Wikidata; then revert the new article back to a redirect. As Derek and Clive (Q5262484) would say "I ask you: Is that any way to run a ballroom?" --RexxS (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Can't add new languages

When i try to create a new item in order to add new languages to an existing item, it shows up as a completely different page instead. How do i add new languages (not wikipedia links, but spaces to add label, description etc.) to an existing page? The main wikidata page says as soon as an item is created in a different language it can be edited in all languages, but that's not what happened. YuriNikolai (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you see only pt/en/es as available languages? Or even less? Syced (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@YuriNikolai: Which item do you want to improve? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Several ones, pretty much every one i find really. And i see many languages on all items im working on, but i'd still like to add more. YuriNikolai (talk) 00:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@YuriNikolai: Try enabling the labelLister gadget. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no clue what you try to achieve. New languages ie languages we want to have labels for have a process because it is in the software / configuration where this is possible. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Vegetarians and Vegetarianism activists

Hi, I'm looking for some comments. Previously there were three different categories regarding people and vegetarianism, i.e.:

@Spinoziano: merged all the three items in Q7472972, stating that no project has more than one category dealing about people and vegetarianism, and that in any case people are included in categories "Vegetarians" because they are known for that, so they can be considered like activists. Maybe the first two items (activists and supporters) could be merged. However, I don't agree with the total choice, because the meaning of the categories is different: in one case you're included because you are a vegetarian, in the other case you're included because you're actively promoting the vegetarian ideology and movement. And I don't agree that since "they are known for being vegetarian" that means that they can be considered "activists", and consider "vegetarians" equal to "vegetarian activists". In the same way Atheists and Atheism activists are kept separated, for example. What do you think? --Superchilum(talk to me!) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think merging the categories is the right decision. The different items point to three clearly different concepts and it's useful to understand precisely what someone means when they use a concept. ChristianKl (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Please, fact. Instead of "I think" please give definitions. Without definition the merge is understandable because there is no way to distinguish between the items.
In this case what is a vegetarianism activist ? A star who put in Facebook its choice to be vegetarian ? If a vegetarian admits in public its choice, is he considered as vegetarianism supporter ? If a scientist publish a document about the risk to eat too much meat, can he be considered as a vegetarian.
We need clear definitions, if possible from external and recognized sources and most of the time problems occurs because people think. You can have hundreds of differents opinions in WD so your opinion has no more worth than another one. Instead of asking what people think do the most efficient job: find a source who say that that person is a vegetarianism activist. We will save time and energy. Snipre (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Unnecessarily rude. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 09:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
In topic: "external and recognized sources" are needed in the Wikipedias. On, for example, the main voice of the "Category:Vegetarians" is List of vegetarians, which contain "people who followed a vegetarian diet". The same for example on and This kind of categorization has been deleted both on and, choosing more specific categories: Vegetarianism activists ("people whose vegetarianism activism is considered one of the defining characteristics") and Vegetarianism supporters ("people who have supported, difended etc. the vegetarian diet... mere adhesion to vegetarianism is not sufficient to include the person in the category"). In fact, vegetarianism can be adopted for different reasons: respect for sentient life, religious beliefs, or health-related, political, environmental, cultural, aesthetic, economic, or personal preference (see en:Vegetarianism and the sources cited), while activism "consists of efforts to promote, impede, or direct social, political, economic, or environmental change, or stasis with the desire to make improvements in society and to correct social injustice" (see en:Activism and the sources cited), so they are not necessarily correspondent. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 12:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
vegetarianism (Q83364) is a diet. Activisim is about wanting to get other people to do something. It's possible to want to get other people to stop eating meat while one eat meat. It's also possible to have a vegetarian diet without tellling anyone about it or caring about what other people eat.
Apart from the fact an action being understandable in no way implies that it was good. I can understand when people engage in fraud, but that doesn't mean that fraud isn't a crime.
This debate doesn't happen to be about whether any particular person should be listed as "vegetarian activist" on WD. Individual Wikipedia's make a decision to list them that way, and it's not WD role to try to overrule them and argue that their categories are wrong.
The standard for merging in Help:Merge is "absolutely certain" that the two are the same. ChristianKl (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Different wikis have different categorizations. Sometimes the categories are the same (in which case the category should be represented by one item in WD). Sometimes the categories are different (in which case the categories should be represented by different items in WD).
In the specific case under discussion, an activist or supporter may not necessarily be a follower, and certainly most followers are not necessarily activists. Following through on the merged items under discussion, and possible members of the different categories, it would appear that Albert Einstein was a supporter of vegetarianism, but only followed the diet for the last year of his life, and probably cannot be counted as an activist. See here for details on Einstein from the International Vegetarian Union (Q430696)... Robevans123 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

YouTube channel ID

How do I specify channels in YouTube channel ID (P2397) that don't seem to have an ID, just a name, such as Maybe a separate property nees to be created, or can some magic be done to make this support both? nyuszika7h (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

See the source of the page: <meta itemprop="channelId" content="UCb9ThkmYIUXyHb5pJiTyn1w">. Good idea for a bot? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Simple property usage instructions might also help. ChristianKl (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Or, open one of their videos, and click back to the channel with the link under the video. – Máté (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You can just add the full link. Every twelve hours those will be cleaned by a script I wrote. Mbch331 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

enabling Wikidata data access in user language

Hello all,

As previously announced, the access to Wikidata data in user language has been deployed yesterday (see the ticket). If you have any question or problem, please let us know.

Thanks hoo_man for this new feature! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Tools to create items, need guidance for the Wikisources

I have generally created root level English Wikisource items manually, as they are one at a time, and each property/item pair need to be individually recorded.

Now I am trying to create items for the subpages of a biographical work Eminent English liberals in and out of Parliament (Q26722460) using PetScan. I can create a list, however when I try to get PetScan to create the items it just says it starts and then nothing progresses. I don't see that I can add contextual links to respective pages, it just seems to be addition of common statements.

So I went to look at QuickStatements, and that is a different beast again, and I can see that I can individualise the statements (with some effort) though there is no indication of how to add badges. There is no apparent ability to share PetScan lists with QuickStatements

Now I am probably an absolute nonce, however, the tools do not seem well-suited to readily get Wikisource pages into Wikidata. Is there a better tool to be using? Is there better ways to research the codes required for these tools? Who is able to give guidance to assist the Wikisource community to get sensible data in place systematically and with depth rather than having to bash around a slow manual approach? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge Q2344417 into Q17486063

Hello, could someone merge Stephanus le Moine (Q2344417) into Q17486063, please? They are the same person. Thanks. 15:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to merge yourself see ChristianKl (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)