Wikidata

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/10

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

Expanding Wikidata's Parenthood Information by 178% ..

Interesting paper: Expanding Wikidata’s Parenthood Information by 178%, or How To Mine Relation Cardinalities (Q27038095)

I came across this yesterday. It could be interesting to use this approach to add statements to Wikidata.
--- Jura 05:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you add a P31 property? It isn't clear what is. --ValterVB (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  Done It's an article.
--- Jura 06:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
More background : http://iswc2016.semanticweb.org/pages/program/accepted-posters-demos.html#poster_mirza_4 . It's a poster paper from ISCW2016. The idea is to use natural language informations of wikipedia articles on the number of children on Wikipedia to import it using number of children (P1971)  , a property scarcely used right now. And to use this to estimate the completeness of the sibling properties on those people. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced about that last part. P40 is generally incomplete and P1971 is frequently used for living people where P40 are avoided.
--- Jura 13:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Is >90% precision as claimed in the article enough for us to create statements? ChristianKl (talk) 10:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The more challenging part (for a program) will be to link a number of children (P1971) to a specific marriage/relationship. I have often seen on wikipedia some part stating "They had no child" and then later a list of children from a second marriage. --Melderick (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Does it make sense to allow anonymous editing on Wikidata?

Less than one percent of edits on Wikidata are made by anonymous users. Yet when I look at the "Recent changes"-page a lot of the problematic edits are made by annonymous users. Even when anonymous users enter valid content into Wikidata they seldom add sources for the content. If one user creates many bad edits it's much easier to fight all the edits if the user is registered than when the edits are made with different ID's. In the sense of valuing data quality highly, our data quality might be higher without anonymous users.

Educating anonymous users is hard, given that they might have another IP address the next time they edit. As a result the interaction with them is frequently more hostile. There edits get simple reverted without them getting an explanation of how to integrate. If every user would be registered there's the possibility of users who make bad edits getting useful guidance instead of the status quo where there edits are simply reverted.

Do you think that there's value in allowing anonymous editing? ChristianKl (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same way. At this point, given that any data may be edited at will by pretty much anybody, and that there's likely too much for the current community of (two orders of magnitude below) 16,000 active editors to counter every stupid act of vandalism, this despite the existence of several bots and automated tools that aid in this effort, we should consider requiring edits by anonymous editors and non-autoconfirmed users to undergo review (in a similar fashion to Wikibooks) before being included in existing items and properties. On a similar note, we may also wish to prohibit the creation of items by those same categories of people. Mahir256 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think there's the bandwith to review the edits of all anonymous editors. Having a lot of unconfirmed data might not be very useful. I think it makes more sense to simply not allow anonymous edits. On the other hand I think there's value in allowing non-autoconfirmed users to create items. It's how new users come into this community. ChristianKl (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I am reverting lot of vandalism and I can agree that most of them is made by anonymous. But looking on recent changes of anonymous, most of them are not vandalism, so there is value from allowing anonymous editing.
We need to fight against vandals, not anonymous users. For vandals, the biggest reward is their vandalism to be seen. So I think that semi-protecting most of popular items may be the way to reduce vandalism. At the moment we have less than 100 items it main namespace semi-protected. For comparison enwiki has 3,164 indefinitely semi-protected and at least 1,254 temporary semi-protected pages. --Jklamo (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
While most edits by anonymous editors are not vandalism they are also not referenced content. There's no good way to teach anonymous editors to provide sources for their edits. When it comes to registered editors it would be possible to automatically post a message to their talk page after they made 25 edits without providing sources that encourages them to source their material.
I think a good subset of those who currently make anomyous edits would register an account if that's the only way they could contribute.
As far as semi-protection goes, there might be value in automatically semi-protecting an item in Wikidata when a corresponding Wikipedia article is semiprotected. ChristianKl (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently we've put suggestive icons of pencils in our infoboxes, inviting to edit vandalize Wikidata. Strakhov (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
We should certainly allow anonymous editing on Wikidata. However, we should work more on making it easier to edit correctly. Some or all properties should prompt editors for a source before saving. Properties (and sometimes items) should show more extensive usage instructions in the editing area itself. Constraints violations should be visible while editing. Property and item suggestions should be more accurate. IIRC, the devs are working on all these things, so we just need to be patient and do our best patrolling in the meantime. --Yair rand (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Before we can ask people to add references, we should fix the property suggestions for them or at least suggest a default set when no suggestion data is available. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The short answer of us is   yes, see our rule #2 of principle. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would make that page a binding policy document. It seems to have an expecation list that freely grows without policy decisions to add expections in a way that's easily visible. There are for example NPOV expections when projects found NPOV didn't work for them. This would just be another expection. ChristianKl (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: c.f. m:Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2015-11#Proposition: Letting individual Wiki projects decide on their own whether they want to ban IP edits. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
That page has one user who has a strong opinion with Nemo and other users who point to the fact that expections are made defacto to those principles. ChristianKl (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

  Support Absolute support for blocking IPs! They are just wasting volunteers time.--Sauri-Arabier (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

  •   Strong oppose First the developers have to fix the bugs who randomly makes us log out when we move from one project to another! I personally often experience it when I visit projects I am not very active in, for example Wikimedia Commons. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose You all well know that even if we wanted to disable anonymous editing, we wouldn't be allowed to. We are an open wiki facing vandalism not only from anonymous users, just like 800+ other Wikimedia wikis whereas none of these has disabled editing for by anonymous users (some wikis have an advanced system for edit review though) and it will stay so forever. So I consider this discussion really pointless. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
That sounds a bit like the fox in aesops fable. Are you aware of any Wiki that tried to ban anonymous editors with the Wikimedia foundations blocking their attempt to do so?
I think a key reason why en.Wiki didn't shut down anonymous editing was that there a lot of valuable content contributed to en.Wiki by anonymous users. Less than 1% of our content comes from anonymous sources and the amount of sourced content is even less. Vandalism fighting in Wikidata is also harder given the fact that vandals can choose to contribute content in languages that most reviewers don't speak.
But even without a decision to ban all anonymous editing we could block new item creation like en.Wiki and do sighting like de.Wiki which we currently don't do. ChristianKl (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I would certainly encourage disallowing certain actions through use of abusefilters for IP addresses, or even new users, even if that means that there are some new abuse filters or actions that we need to develop. The ability for an IP to edit is clearly different from the ability to edit as they so please, or without controls. If it is a disallowable event, we could restrict and direct IP users to have an account for certain actions  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  Support Blocking anonymous editing is not a violation of rule #2 because everyone can register an account in 5 seconds.--It's So Easy (talk) 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

@It's So Easy: At least in Mainland China you have to waste at least half minutes before loading Special:CreateAccount as per Great Firewall (Q5370363), Iran has a likely case IMO. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Matěj Suchánek. Averater (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose pretty much as Matěj Suchánek stated. There would have to be a strong evidence-base that (nearly) all IP editing was bad for WD and that we were unable to manage the risks of IP editing with the available tools. Such a case has not been presented in this situation. If the proposal is to come forward then based on the anecdotes let us start getting that sort of statistical evidence required. We can also start encouraging IP users to create and use an account, and in that we are no different from the other wikis which face that issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We could display an inline popup every time an anonymous user saves a statement that encourages that user to register an account. ChristianKl (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I hope that is not a serious suggestion. I presumed that we are looking for practical solutions to vandalism, not provocative actions to piss off valid users. The scheme for converting IP editors to valued contributors would hopefully be more mature than suggested.

IP editing is reasonable; whereas vandalism that is unacceptable. Not adding references is unfortunate, not solely the province of IP editors, and, not something that should prevent an edit. There we need to look at our system with regard to references and our inability to make it both easy and robust. Nobody has yet presented solutions to my issues about adding references, and I have added significantly more than one or two entries manually, and our system is simply immature for my needs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

At this phase listing suggestions is more a matter of brainstorming for me than saying that a certain system should be implemented. If we don't want anonymous editors but Wikimedia insists in us allowing anonymous editors this would be a possible solution. But contrary to what Matěj Suchánek suggests I don't think that Wikimedia would insist.
Additonally an edit without references by a user that has a history of making good edits is more valuable than the same edit by an anonymous user. The vandalism detection algorithms can learn to trust registered users in a way they can't learn to trust anonymous users. ChristianKl (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • To use anecdotal evidence from my own patrolling activities here, I'd say that ~95% of anon edits are valid contributions to the project. Not worth turning it off because of the slight margin of abuse, in my opinion. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Anonymous users are users that are new to the project and as such they are prone to make errors. There is enough of research on meta that supports that claim. Just because anonymous users make mistakes and there are outright vandals among them is not an reason imo to exclude them.--Snaevar (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Rank Insignia

I am interested to find whether there is a rank insignia-like property on Wikidata, and if there isn't - how to handle the following situation:

  • Take ru:Орловский 36-й пехотный полк#Знаки различия - a Russian infantry regiment. There is one rank insignia for every military/civil rank that was assignable in that regiment. Each of these insignias have an image on Commons. A different regiment would have totally distinct insignias.
  • Is there a way to describe the assignment "insignia image-to-rank" on Wikidata? Where should this assignment be described (I suppose on Regiment's item page)?

Thank you.

PS: Asking the question in the context of a user uploading tons of insignia images for various regiments of different times and countries: Special:ListFiles/Polygon_v. Would like to have that documented on Wikidata.

Ping @Niklitov:. --Gikü (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

How about using the image property for the regiments? ChristianKl (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
There is one image per rank. There are a lot of ranks assignable in a regiment. --Gikü (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this just calls for separate items for each insignia. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Any plans to add UNS?

See w:Unified numbering system Do any property creators know of the feasibility of adding this system to our database? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you are willing to enter the data to Wikidata, you can create a property proposal for a property for UNS. ChristianKl (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I've just proposed my first few properties and they are 1.) simpler and 2.) in my field of expertise so I was a little reluctant to write up one more complex and technical. But if no one else is going to bite, I can try. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a Wiki. If someone thinks that the proposal you did can be improved, they can edit it. The most important issue might be to find a good data set. ChristianKl (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

unknown value, a bug?

Hello. Is this a bug? Should I delete a claim when I see that ¡unknown' value? Regards. Emijrp (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's no bug. This is a user saying that the place of birth of the person is unknown. There's no reason to delete it by default. ChristianKl (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Emijrp: I would only expect that use if the sources say it is unknown, eg. a date of birth, rather than the person's lack of knowledge or inability to find it. I occasionally use "no value" or "unknown" for a VIAF identifier if it that I cannot find or otherwise cannot distinguish a clear result, though with such "living" data I would add a "retrieved" qualifier.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

I reverted a vandalism action by Special:Contributions/200.125.53.114

Not sure about the other actions of this user. Syced (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it's all vandalism. But they've stopped now, so no need to block unless they come back. I'll leave them a nice note asking that they don't do it again though. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Q27000000

Stakihnúkur (Q27000000): another milestone. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's just another number, not a milestone (Q2143762). :( --Succu (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Milestones are defined by arbitrary, usually round numbers :) --Denny (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the data about its height is rather... diverse. Also, is it a hill or a mountain? That will be interesting to watch. --Denny (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure whether number of items created is a good measurement. If I recreate a lot of doublicate items that then have to be merged the number of created items rises, but that doesn't mean that there's progress in Wikidata. Counting the actual number of items in existence would make more sense to me. ChristianKl (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Stakihnjúkur is an summit. The whole word means the lonely summit. Lmi.is probably has the correct height, after all it is the national land survey of the country in question.--Snaevar (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

d:Q4420546 and link to en:Synecology

Please, help to add link en:Synecology to Wikepedia block at d:Q4420546. When I try to save I get error below

Could not save due to an error. The link en:Community_(ecology) is already used by item d:Q5608096. You may remove it from d:Q5608096 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic.

Niichavo (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

en:Synecology is a redirect to en:Community (ecology). You can't add a redirect to an item without some workaround, but I think it isn't necessary in this case --ValterVB (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
ValterVB, try to delete interwiki to en:Synecology from bottom of the code of it:Sinecologia and you will change your opinion. Niichavo (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, but why I must change my idea? --ValterVB (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
ValterVB, because now it:Sinecologia haven't link to existing en:Synecology article ("Community ecology or synecology is the study..."). Do you think is't right behavior? Niichavo (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, because "Synecology" don't exist in en.wikipedia. --ValterVB (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
and ecological community (Q5608096) is about Q3630489 + synecology (Q4420546) (more or less). --ValterVB (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
ValterVB, please restore interwiki to en:Synecology in it:Sinecologia. See [1] Niichavo (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It is a Wikipedia decision not a Wikidata decision. On it.wikipedia we don't use old interwiki, but if you want, you can create the page on en.wikipedia. --ValterVB (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

How to model properties with yes/no values

I've been thinking about how to model claims which only take a "yes" or "no" value (where "no" is significantly different from "don't know"). To give a concrete example I'm trying to move information about lakes in Sweden which says "Is suffering from acidification = yes" and "Is suffering from Eutrophication = no". There is standardised information on this for all lakes in the EU so the long-term goal is to import this from the official reports. Note that "no" means the impact type has been evaluated and so it carries a lot more meaning than unknown.

The easy solution is to create one Property for each of the 14 (EU recognised) impact types and then set the value to yes/no/unknown (with yes/no either items or simply 1/0). That seems very inelegant however. It would be much more appealing to create a property like "Environmental Impact type" and set value eutrophication (Q156698), but how would one then signal yes/no through qualifiers? And if yes/no is on qualifier level how can one make it clear if that changes after an evaluation a year later? /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sidenote: From earlier discussions, we know that there is no "boolean datatype" in the developers pipeline. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • For any statement, if it's something likely to change, it would have a "point in time" qualifier (or start/end dates). If it's a general set of characteristics, it might be worth using items for "suffering from acidification" or "not suffering from acidification" as values.
    --- Jura 07:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you link the official EU documentation of the impact types that we want to model? ChristianKl (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
What you really should add to the database is the levels of impact (using individual properties with number data type, possibly with unit), rather than the fact that a system is impacted. At that point, "no" can be modeled with "no value", while "yes" can actually be modeled with "unknown value", when you don't have a precise value in the source in question. --Izno (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Example: Say the source has "acidification = yes". Then the property "acidification" takes a value of "unknown value", properly sourced and qualified by date. If later, someone measures the acidification in the lake to be x parts per million, the property "acidification" gets a new value "x parts per million", property sourced and qualified by date (with associated rank). Re-users of the data can/will take "unknown value" to mean "yup, it's acidified". --Izno (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
There's no reason why the unknown value should be removed when it properly sourced and qualified by data when new data is added. ChristianKl (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the data model as you describe it now, is probably not the best way to describe this. There is probably a value for the "acidification" of any lake here, but what is "environmental impact" depends on the sensibility of the system. Gotland, Scania together with the British islands do not have much problems with acidification since they are based on limestone. Other kind of areas are more sensible. A "number" is here therefor not enough to describe the "environmental impact". We need a scale of some type. The scale EU uses, looks binary. "somevalue" is then probably the "unknown"-value, not the "yes, there is some impact"-value. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
A solution is to create two items Eutrophicable and non Eutrophicable, .... Put classes of Eutrophicable stuff... as a subclass of Eutrophicable (resp.). ... author  TomT0m / talk page 16:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
My guess is that the proprety of beeing non Eutrophicable is deduced from other properties of the stuff. Then we can deduce the property of beeing eutrophicable from these other properties - see WikiProject Inferences. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually on a more fundamental way you seem to be trying to use a boolean (yes/no or true/false) datatype. Logically a property like beeing eutrophicable can be true or false for any stuff. A class can be defined by intension if we give such a property to define the class and this property can be defined through other properties - say beeing a grandfather can be deduces from being a man, having a children who itself have a children. Then you can be classified - manually or automagically - in the class of grandfather. And you'll do not need a boolean and a property is a Grandfather:true or false to model that. It's the same for beeing eutrophicable. You just need a class for eutrophicable stuff. Later the membership could even be deduced from other wikidata statements. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata's 4th birthday: we need you!

Hello all,

As you know, Wikidata's fourth birthday is on October 29th, and during one week, we will celebrate it IRL and online with several events.


IRL events

A meetup will take place in the Wikimedia Deutschland's office in Berlin, on November 4th. You can meet Wikidata editors, celebrate the birthday, discover new tools, play board games and eat a piece of cake! If you want to come, please add your name here.

You can't go to Berlin? That's not a problem, you can organize your own event where you are! Find some other Wikidata editors or supporters, and create your own meetup. You don't need to organize something complicated, only choose a date, a place (bar, public location, etc.), and invite other people to join. If you need any advice, I'll be happy to help. Please add your events on this page.


Community stories

This year, instead of a long editorial, we would like to collect several short stories from the editors.

You want to participate? One of these questions may help you:

  • How did you start editing Wikidata?
  • What is your coolest project achieved on Wikidata?
  • What task are you the most proud of?
  • Or what interesting failure you encountered and what did you learn from that?
  • What was your favorite community moment on Wikidata?

The format can be anything you want: short text, blog post, comic strip, video...

You can either post in on a subpage of your userpage, elsewhere on the web, or send it to me by e-mail. I will link the stories on the birthday page.

The deadline is October 28th. If you have any questions, need ideas, please come to me!

Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #229

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Worked more on making it possible to use Wikidata items and properties to make statements about multimedia files on Commons in the future
    • Adding a list of items used in an article to the edit page on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T144921)
    • More work on automated language links for Wiktionary (phabricator:T145412)
    • Improve the way to count and display the number of items on the main page (phabricator:T144687)
    • Solved a bug on the gadget DuplicateReferences (phabricator:T146318)
    • Clicking on the desired property while adding a new Statement didn't focus the value input. That has been fixed (phabricator:T144037).
    • Made it possible to use the bzr and cvs protocols in URL data types (phabricator:T146692)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Wikidata sourced with Wikidata. Is this ok?

Is this ok? I mean, it's potentially useful having imported from Wikimedia project (P143) with the Wikipedia the value was imported from, whether that source is unreliable or not. But using other Wikidata item for sourcing a statement with stated in (P248)? I think that's crossing a line... If it's useful storing this data (who knows...) wouldn't be better using at least a different property? Strakhov (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought we've had a item to indicate that the statement was added to sync a property (like in this example, father and child). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Found it: Q20651139. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
P248 is supposed to be used with books, articles and similar things. Using it in this way makes it very hard for Wikipedias templates to interpret what the source really is. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This kind of use is just a sign of laziness: the correct way is to copy the reference from the first item. Just imagine what happens the day of the initial statement is deleted ? Snipre (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think bots adding references to new statements they make without the bot really understanding what the reference says isn't a good idea. It's better to have a statement without a reference than having a statement with a potentially wrong reference. If a bot wants to copy references, the content should go through the primary sources tool. ChristianKl (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Your comment is not logic: you trust enough bots to add statements but not enough to see them adding references ? If bots can be coded to extract and understand reverse statements, they can extract the reference from the original statement too. Snipre (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
It's easy for a Wikipedia to only import statements that have sources and not import those that don't have sources. As such there should be a lower bar to adding statement then to adding sources. If you have a person who changed their gender from male to female, a bot that automatically adds reverse father/child claims might make a wrong claim. I think it's acceptable that a bot makes such a claim. I don't think it's acceptable that the bot adds a wrong source and says the person is a mother when they source says they are a father. ChristianKl (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The stated in property has the correct constraint to catch laziness like this. The editor should be trouted. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Pinging @Landesfilmsammlung:, the owner of the bot that made these edits. --Yair rand (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I have reported similar behavior for a different bot at Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Goo1Bot adding improper references. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) mixed/incorrect usage

This property is described as pointing from the work to a person, as in this item had the following contributor(s). Looking at the items listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/P:P767 this property has been used as a target for the item, and as target from the item. At this previous discussion here I tried to address this matter, and now I see that this situation has worsened.

@Pigsonthewing: I feel that there is a need for a property that points from a person to a work, and then we can fix the wrong application of the property. Then we can properly attribute the Wikisource authors to the works to which they contributed, eg. DNB, PSM, EB rather than having excruciatingly long lists on the works items. This will also allow for the Wikisources to more easily label at their wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What are the use cases, where adding a suitably qualified author (P50) or similar property to the work will not suffice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: A person "contributes to" a serial work/compilation, and is the author of an article within a series. An example of an incorrect use is …

where I think that we are wanting to say

 — billinghurst sDrewth 23:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@billinghurst: the closest correct property I can find to express your first  Yed example is
Of course this doesn't help with an author's minor works. The documentation of author (P50) indicates it should be used as a property for a work, while the documentation for notable work (P800) indicates it should be used as a property for a person (e.g. an author, artist, sculptor, etc.) Jc3s5h (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: That was a poor example of mine, and was more to indicate to Andy that the use of author wasn't feasible in my opinion.

The author use we have is on the biographical articles, eg. at Athelstan (DNB00) (Q19051875) and typically the it is notable works that we utilise on the author's page. My argument is to address where someone contributes to a compilation work(s) that we wish to capture and show that higher level data.

By the way, for the DNB, Gordon Goodwin (Q19361420) / s:en:Author:Gordon Goodwin contributed over 1000 biographical articles, so listing those as notable works will flood the page, and there are many contributors who did many articles.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Awards - what to do with the organisation and the awardee

Hoi, I have added awards to Mr Robert Fisk. He was awarded repeatedly the Amnesty International UK Media Award. The article for the 1992 award has "organisation" the "Independent on Sunday". On the item for Mr Fisk, what do I use for the qualifier for this newspaper? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think currently the biggest problem with the statements for Robert Fisk is that there are no references. He seems to have won the 1992 award for his report "The Other Side of the Hostage Saga" according to en.wiki. for work (P1686) can link to an item for that report. I guess the report was published in the "Independent on Sunday"? ChristianKl (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Change template for Property proposal to only show creation links when the property is 7+ days old

I think it would be useful if the property proposal template only shows the creation link when the 7 days that a property should be open at the minimum are passed. ChristianKl (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Theoretically of course it is possible, but not in easy way. As minimum, there should be some timestamp in template. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Currently I can't trust that properties that are labeled "ready" by other people have had their 7 days and I have to recheck. ChristianKl (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You should be checking that the proposal is well formulated, not a duplicate, and that there is consensus, anyway. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Problems with gender?

When approving or rejecting the claim gender female on Q456071 it re-apears again. Is there something going wrong? Same for Q520321. --Florentyna (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be a bug in the primary sources tool. @Hjfocs: ChristianKl (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Qualifier to describe that a property is only sometimes true

I'm in the process of adding innervates (P3190) data. Sometimes there's data that only true for some people. Is there a general qualifier for cases like this? ChristianKl (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine --Succu (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I am not aware of a property or "Wikidata-Grammar" for such a case. Can you post your opinion here, so it will be easier for the medical community to find and comment on: Wikidata talk:WikiProject Medicine. There are only a few editors and not all read the project chat. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me like this is a problem that's specific to medicine, but I can post it over there as well. ChristianKl (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I think the answer is "no". The person who gets more nuance would probably be the person who writes more documentation of special cases and makes a proposal to do something new. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
applies to part (P518), with a suitable value? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I think applies to part (P518) would rarely be useful, especially since the value would have to be a Wikidata item, not a free-form text description. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Please provide examples of real-world cases where this solution would not suffice. Note that "free-form text descriptions" are generally to be avoided, because Wikidata is a linked, open, database, not a prose encyclopedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the original poster's example is just the sort of example Pigsonthewing is looking for. Let's say that nerve X innervates muscle Y in most people, but in some people, muscle Y is innervated by nerve Z instead. If you add applies to part (P518) to the innervates property of item X, what would you fill in for the value? You can't use Y as the value, because most of the time Y is innervated by X. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Are we talking about lumbricals of the hand (Q1394547) by any chance? Background - these are four finger muscles where two fingers are worked by one nerve and the other two are worked by a different nerve. This is true for 60% of the population, but there are two variations on the theme, both true for 20% of the population.
The problem with using applies to part (P518) (and I also looked at proportion (P1107) as a possibility) as qualifiers is that you would really need to qualify them further to say what part/proportion you're talking about (in this case, the human population).
I think there is a good case for a new property "proportion of population", mainly to be used as a qualifier, which, like proportion (P1107), could take a value in the range 0-1, or a percentage.
This would be useful in other areas. Oddly enough I was recently trying to state the proportion of a population speaking Welsh at a different points in time, all with references, and you run out of qualifiers...
There may well be a case for two sub-properties: "proportion of female population" and "proportion of male population", since many medical conditions/diseases, eg colour-blindness present in quite different proportions depending on sex. Robevans123 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
In theory "proportion of population" would be good but this is human anatomy and not a field that get's a lot of research money like genetics. In many cases I don't think the data is available. ChristianKl (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
So are you trying to describe a situation where something like:
  • nerve X innervates muscle Y in some people (but we don't know what proportion), and
  • nerve X innervates muscle Z in some people (but again we don't know what proportion)
In this case, you could possibly use "proportion of population" and set the value to "unknown" in both statements. This would indicate that both statements are true, but you don't know in what proportion. See also How to model properties with yes/no values below on the use of (sourced) unknown values. Robevans123 (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Given that the source implies that not everybody in the population has that innervation I don't think whether "unknown" actually represents the available knowledge.
Just to speak about the content, nerves innervate multiple muscles and many muscles are innervated by multiple nerves. It's not about nerve X either innervating muscle Y or Z but whether it innervates Z in addition to Y and X or whether it only innervates X and Y. ChristianKl (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation directly funding Wikidata

Hello folks,

An information that you could find useful : since the beginning of Wikidata, the project and the development team (led by Wikimedia Germany) were funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, through the Funds Dissemination Committee, and by third parties. From now, the Wikimedia Foundation will directly fund expenses for Wikidata software development. The two organizations signed an agreement to have direct funding at least for the next 3 years. This is good news, showing the strong support of our project by the Foundation and will allow us more stability in the future.

You can read the full blog post here.

Thanks for making Wikidata more and more awesome every day :)

Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds great. Hopefully it will increase Wikidata funding when Wikimedia doesn't have to worry about cofunding the festival summer. ChristianKl (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

YouTube channel & user names

Which properties need their constraints changed, to prevent edits like this, using website username or ID (P554) as a qualifier for YouTube channel ID (P2397), from triggering a constraint warning? Once done, I'll ask someone (User:Pasleim?) to temporarily move user-name values from website account on (P553) to P2397, where User:Mbch331's ytcleaner tool will then fetch the Channel IDs, and ask Mbch331 to modify the tool to add the qualifier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please note that this recent discussion has some open questions. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean the question where I asked for evidence to support the claim that YouTube user names are not unique; or the one where I asked in what way that is relevant to moving P554 qualifier values from one, generic, property to another, more specific, one? The lack of reply is indeed rude, but no reason to delay this improvement to the database. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Why is it an improvement? Not all YouTube users have a channel, that means you will not be able to move all values of website username or ID (P554) from website account on (P553) to YouTube channel ID (P2397). As a consequence, YouTube user names will be found as qualifier on multiple properties making it even harder to query them. --Pasleim (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Do you have examples, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I thought about cases like Andrey Snezhko (Q4425493), Sergey Zhukov (Q7454137), Ruki Vverh! (Q128613) --Pasleim (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Pasleim: Thank you. The latter two items have the same user name, which seems to be an error. Both that account and the former were terminated by YouTube; I suspect that there was channel ID, which we can no longer determine, and so should use "unknown value", like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
|Can someone advise, regarding constraints, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dates, when works go into Public Domain

Colleagues, we are currently working on list of authors whose works came into Public Domain, with exact dates. So, what do you think, if this information (a date when the author's works came into Public Domain) worth for WikiData, and if yes, how should it be described? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 20:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Something entering the public domain depends on... what country we are talking about. It's not the same United Kingdom, USA, Germany, Spain or Malaysia. In Wikimedia projects we often study "public domain in the country where the work was published?" + "public domain in the United States of America?". Once we have the item of a work, its author (P50), date of death (P570), publication date (P577) and country of origin (P495)... I guess a query could be made in order to elucidate what works will enter the public domain in his country of origin on 1 January 2017, for example. It could be cool storing information for "years p.m.a (post mortem autoris) a work is protected in this specific country" (a new property ...for countries). Speaking of the United States... copyright renewals are involved too and .. that would need a different approach, I think. I don't know, just food for thought. Strakhov (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
We, specifically, are currently working on Russian authors. The copyright term is a bit complicated in Russia, it's not simply 70 years p.m.a., it depends on his activities during WWII, and his rehabilitation status... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 01:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be interesting bringing a proposal here and seeing what people say. Speaking of the new property... I think boolean properties kinda Yes/no ("public domain"-> yes/no) are not welcome here ([2]). A new property "Copyright status"->public domain (Q19652) with a qualifier stating the country we're talking about... would be a possibility. But it would be in many cases kinda redundant with copyright license (P275). Qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582) could be used for stating until what date a work had all rights reserved and when it entered the public domain. Property "Date of public domain" with a qualifier stating the country... pssst. It's messy. Answering your initial questions 1) hell yes 2) I don't know the best way to describe it. :( Strakhov (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I would call the item "public domain in Russia" instead of calling it "public domain" and adding Russia as qualifier. ChristianKl (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I would oppose a parameter for this; once the death date is known, the PD date can be calculated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Not in every case. It might be possible to calculate a latest date, but in other cases it depends whether the subject died in World War 2, whether the copyright was renewed, when the work was published and other criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
In that case the property should be renamed/repurposed to "copyright status" or something like that. Public domain is not a license (except CC0). Whether a new property is needed or a renaming is enough, I agree with the Wikiproject suggestion. Strakhov (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

proposed Addition to Wikidata:What Wikidata is not

Hello.I suggest you add this text:

"Encouragement of any kind:An Item can provide data, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view"

(Acronym for W:Wp:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion)

to Wikidata:What Wikidata is not.not to put data cause anger (See Talk:Q9458) --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In what cases do you think an individual would implement the policy differently if that section would be added to the text? ChristianKl (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
ChristianKl In the case of the support of group against another group like addition image angers Muslims (See Talk:Q9458).Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose That's censorship and it's against the very fabric of free knowledge, as said. Wikidata is a database of ..."data". Not data Muslim people are happy to see. Nor Christian people. Nor Communist ones. Nor anyone. Offering only data specific religious groups tolerate isn't neutral but the very opposite. Strakhov (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The idea of neutrality of en.Wiki doesn't forbid information like this. en.Wiki does host images like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy . ChristianKl (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
ChristianKl Not "tolerate" but respect and avoid problems.And that article about abuse in a newspaper --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
That article republished the image that likely caused the most problems. Under the standards you propose the image wouldn't be republished. ChristianKl (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
ChristianKl The two cases are different:Different images can not be put in that article but the article of the person himself Many imges fits it without alienating anyone --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose Even as a Muslim I must agree with ChristianKl. The English Wikipedia's stance on this issue is very clear and I believe, unless it is indicated otherwise, is the stance Wikidata takes as well. (You're welcome to develop an analogue to the methods described in Question 3 for Wikidata, though I'm sure people will look at you less kindly than they already do.) Mahir256 (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

American Physical Therapy Association (Q750863)

Needs to be separated. It contains the national Physical Therapy Associations of the US, Denmark, France and Germany (all together!).--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, is there anything that's holding you back from separating them yourself? ChristianKl (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Storing community Facebook group data?

Hi there

Apologies if this is the wrong place, I'm new to Wikidata. On my hpluspedia wiki one of the key resources is an index of the facebook groups which collectively comprise much of the transhumanist community. I've been searching for a better way of handling the underlying data in a more normalised format for the future rather than a single page.

Would Facebook page data be within the scope of wiki data, or should I look at solutions like semantic wiki? Thanks! Deku-shrub (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking about WikiData itself or do you want to host your own WikiBase installation the way you currently host MediaWiki? ChristianKl (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
ChristianKl I am uncertain what the most appropriate approach would be. The extension/project certainly seems of interest to me, I believe the question is whether my use case (facebook group attribute data) is suitable for hosting on the main WikiData project or whether I should host it on my own wikidata instance? Deku-shrub (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think many people on Wikidata wouldn't consider a facebook group with 16 members like Longevity Baltics to be notable enough to deserve it's own Wikidata item. It also seems to me like you make editorial decisions about which items belong in the list which aren't typically what Wikidata is about. ChristianKl (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much, looks like running my own instance would be better. :) Deku-shrub (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

nofollow question

Does anyone know what's the nofollow status of sitelinks to siterprojects in Wikidata items (the ones that generate the interwiki links on the sidebar)? In WP normal external links are nofollow but links using siterproject templates are not. The source is not visible here so I can't tell. Thanks, Acer (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you don't get a response here, try asking at Wikidata:Contact the development team, as this seems like a question they'll be best placed to answer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you Acer (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Creative Commons 4.0

Hello! I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation to invite you to give your feedback on a proposed move from CC BY-SA 3.0 to a CC BY-SA 4.0 license across all Wikimedia projects. The consultation will run from October 5 to November 8, and we hope to receive a wide range of viewpoints and opinions. Please, if you are interested, take part in the discussion on Meta-Wiki.

Apologies that this message is only in English. This message can be read and translated in more languages here. JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Important correction: "Wikidata will continue to use CC0 for contributions, which will make it easy to add and share factual data on the project" (meta:Talk:Terms of use/Creative Commons 4.0#How will this affect Wikidata (which currently uses CC0)?). --Lockal (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@JSutherland (WMF): Please make the above correction clear on every project to which you have posted this massage. Also, the "(WMF)" part of your user name should be visible in your sig. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Andy - thanks for the ping. As noted in the FAQ for this consultation, projects can opt-out where appropriate. This results in a potentially very long list of projects which may, for whatever reason, opt-out of the move to 4.0 as they did for 3.0 (a notable example being Wikinews which uses CC BY 2.5; that's also in the FAQ). Apologies if Wikidata's licensing was not clear in the above. As for the signature thing ... that's definitely a clanger. Hopefully the "I'm writing from the Wikimedia Foundation" introduction was enough to confirm my affiliation, but I'm sorry that it wasn't immediately clear. MassMessage requires one to write out their signature from scratch, which doesn't make signing messages easy. JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Murderers

I see we have killed by (P157) ... do we have the inverse, such that we can specify who Lee Harvey Oswald (Q48745) (or any other murderer) killed? murderer (Q931260), in the one instance I looked at, doesn't cut it - was used to specify someone's occupation was murderer. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: With a few exceptions, we shouldn't rely on inverse properties (though some people like them); you can use queries for that. You can ask at WD:RAQ and someone will write a query, if you can't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

DuplicateReferences

I would like to report that the DuplicateReference-gadget behaves strangely when I make changes like these. Obviously, it works, but when I have hit the "Insert reference"-button, the claim itself does not look like it is saved. The new reference is really saved, and everything looks fine in the background, but it looks like something went wrong when I look into the GUI. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This has already been reported to Jonas Kress (WMDE). At least it "works" for now, only some visual errors. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it "works", even if it does not look so. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

exact values constraint

Is there (or could there be) a property constraint that requires numerical values to be exact (i.e. ±0)? A use case is points awarded (P3260) where there are potentially almost infinitely many different possible values, but all should be exact values. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that using an integer datatype when it becomes available is not the answer here, as fractions of points are possible in some systems, and even if integers are used there still should not be uncertainty around the values. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I need a qualifier to show where a team promoted or relegated, to show where the team played the next season due to promotion or relegation of the previous season. I have propose "to" but many users are opposed. Can you suggest something else; I want to show that:

⟨ 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732)      ⟩ relegated (P2882)   ⟨ Newcastle United F.C. (Q18716)      ⟩
to Search ⟨ Q24067533 ⟩

.

Xaris333 (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The database contains information on where the team plays in the next session (provided it's entered). What additional value do you believe will be created? ChristianKl (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (edit conflict) This seems more like a property of the club:

(or whatever the actual values are). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

ChristianKl to show where the promoted or the relegated teams promote or relegate. Xaris333 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

How is that not included when the information is entered like Andy Mabbett suggests? ChristianKl (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to show the information at league page. All Wikipedia articles (like w:2015–16 Premier League) shows where each team is going to play the next season after a relegation or a promotion. And yes we can also have the information Andy Mabbett suggests but with out June 2016 and September 2016. Since a team in one period was playing in 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732) and the next period in 2016–17 EFL Championship (Q24067533) there is no need for dates. See also qualifies for event (P3085).

We are using a qualifier to show which team qualified for the competition. This information can also enter in teams pages. I don't understand where is the problem to have the information in both pages. Xaris333 (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"We need to show the information at league page." No, you don't. You may want to, but that is not a need. Wikidata is a database, not an encyclopedia, and we don't "need" to store things that duplicate what we already have, or can do more easily. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. This information is useful for the league page. Xaris333 (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata is not build in a way to display all information that can be useful at the Wikidata item of a league. A Wikipedia article of a league page can use LUA to get the value it wants. ChristianKl (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Property constraints on items about people

Please review the discussion at Property talk:P3269#‎Unnecessary and contradictory constraints - the principle applies more generally. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Issue with OpenStreetMap tag or key

We have a problem with OpenStreetMap tag or key (P1282).

For lighthouse (Q39715), we store Tag:man_made=lighthouse. However, the two relevant OSM pages are:

For phone number (P1329), we store Key:contact:phone, for the URLs:

We cannot therefore make a formatter URL for the latter link in each case, which was included in the proposal. Suggestions? Do we need two properties, one for tags and another for keys? Or shall we just use one formatter URL?

@Kolossos: the author of the property proposal, and Marsupium, Conny, Thiemo Mättig (WMDE), Waldir, & Micru, who commented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The osm wiki page is the "main" OSM key/tag page, taginfo is just nice statistical page. Having link to wiki and not having link to taginfo is not a problem (every wiki page has link to taginfo page).--Jklamo (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Taginfo is generally more up-to-date and comprehensive, though, since it includes frequently-used tags that don't have a wiki page yet. There's been some effort recently towards making the tags on the wiki be fetched directly from taginfo, in order to keep a single data source and avoid sync issues (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Taginfo/Taglists), but as far as I know this hasn't been adopted across the board so far. --Waldir (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The OSM-Wiki will be also in future the place where people insert the description. The wiki is also better to read for human. For computer applications it's simple to modify the URL to use taginfo. So in my eyes the wiki is the best target for the link. If a tag is frequently used, there should a also be an description in the wiki to document it. The creation of wiki-page from taginfo works only for summary pages like the "map feature" page, where it is also very useful.
(I talk with Jochen Topf from Taginfo: If we decide to support Taginfo, he could also change his URL-handling in taginfo. But I don't prefer this. ) --Kolossos (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Where and how do I get the list of names for langcode?

Hello. I wonder where and how do I get the list of names for langcode used in Wikidata?

For instance, Q1 has a few language-specific labels and descriptions, all in human-readable language forms such as "English". However, the JSON [3] output contains only the language code such as "en". Where and how do I get the list of codes and names so that can do the mapping exactly the way wikidata does it?123.198.187.226 01:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@123.198.187.226: We use a mish-mash of w:ISO_639 codes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks. Where can I find it, mish-mash of w:ISO_639 codes that are used in Wikidata and their corresponding names? Since Wikidata websites render these codes into names, there must be a table somewhere, right? 123.198.187.226 03:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@123.198: Yes, there is a table somewhere, but I do not know where. You can use the language-parser: #language: to get the content of that table onwiki. By writing {{#language:tr}} you get the local name of the tr-code Türkçe. If you write {{#language:tr|ru}} you get the language name of tr in the Russian language турецкий.
And there is a version of this parser available in Scribunto if you want to write some Lua-code and access this information. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The information for the language codes is stored in Wikimedia language code (P424). You can access it with the normal Wikidata queries. ChristianKl (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
See also mw:Extension:CLDR, [4], mw:Extension:UniversalLanguageSelector and [5]. Korg (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Licensing: economic activity and product classifications

(originally posted on Wikidata:Partnerships and data imports, but archived by a bot with no human comments)

Is it OK to copy item names/descriptions and structure from each of those, and which ones? --AVRS (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The website for the EU classification says "Any question regarding the copyright or re-use of Eurostat data or texts may be sought from the Publications Office of the European Union at the following address [...] e-mail: op-info-copyright@publications.europa.eu"
You might simply email them and ask them whether they are okay with their data being integrated into Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of Wikidata and DBpedia projects as spatial data sources

This was published some time ago: Comparison of Wikidata and DBpedia projects as spatial data sources (Q27042632).

Unfortunately only the abstract is in English. It does include some charts and code though.
--- Jura 07:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It has some neat graphics, indeed. --Denny (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know if it lists features that Wikidata doesn't have yet.
--- Jura 09:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The author for example miss:
  • WQS ability for geospatial queries using GeoSPARQL standard
  • more dump formats (.json .nt .xml vs. .json .nt .ttl .nq .owl .nql .csv or json-ld)
  • REST API queries
  • geoshape datatype
  • more detiled coor datatype documentation
  • altitude attribute use of coor datatype
  • support of different coordinates systems
  • more spatial relationships - equivalence, disjoint, overlay, overlap
  • inability of WQS to convert units
--Jklamo (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): the ones that aren't available yet, shall we add these to Phabricator?
--- Jura 06:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but please only the ones that you actually do want and have a use for. I'd rather not just add features for the sake of looking good in a comparison. Instead we should have them because they are useful ;-) The list of dumps is a candidate for that in my opinion. Having them costs time for implementation, setup and maintenance. So I'd like us to just have the ones that we actually need. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata Query Service Help pages

I collected (and wrote) some documentation on the Wikidata Query Service. I would like to hear your opinions and get a few more eyeballs on it before I move it to the appropriate namespace. Care to help? Here it is: User:Jens_Ohlig_(WMDE)/Wikidata_Query_Help --Jens Ohlig (WMDE) (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The introduction seems unnecessarily long. The sentence "Here you can learn how to query Wikidata" could likely be deleted without any loss in the conveyed information. There no reason to have so much text as an introduction.
The decision not to mention https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Request_a_query on the main page or even the gentle introduction seems very strange.
The target audience seems very unclear. I don't get why there's "What is Wikidata?" in the introduction.
Maybe the best way to proceed is to define the goals of the documentation and start from scratch. ChristianKl (talk) 12:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I should have seen the missing link to the request a query page when reviewing it. Jens will go over it again and add that. He'll also add a link to the actual query service. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback indeed. On the target audience: I expect the help page not only to be useful to Wikidata project members, but also to Wikipedians who want to figure out how to work with Wikidata and build queries. Therefore I included a link to the Wikidata project introduction at the beginning.--Jens Ohlig (WMDE) (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
The explanation about the search-box in the SPARQL query editor is really nice (gif-file) and I didn´t knew that. I like the other parts of the "gentle introduction" too. I can´t say something about the other help pages, at least it is good to have them. Good work. --Molarus 01:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a good start. Will try to go through it thoroughly over the next week. Will put comments, where necessary, on the relevant talk pages. Robevans123 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback again. I made some changes according to your suggestions and will move it from user namespace tomorrow evening (CEST). --Jens Ohlig (WMDE) (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pywikibot

Hello. I am using

pwb.py harvest_template.py -lang:el -cat:Cypriot_First_Division_seasons -template:"Infobox football league season" -namespace:0 matches P1350 total goals P1351 -pt:0

but I get the error

quantity is not a supported datatype.

Can I do something about that?

Xaris333 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

When something is not supported, as a user you can only wait until it's supported, possibly ping developers about the problem. If you are a coder, you can also locally modify the script to work on quantities too. But there's nothing more you can do... oh, wait, there's a nice tool HarvestTemplates. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Its working. Xaris333 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

shares border with (P47)

Hi. Do 1-D Boundaries in a map (2-D boundaries taking height into account) (example for illustrative purposes: quadrant I and III of the cartesian plane) qualify for shares border with (P47) or just linear boundaries between administrative divisions?--Asqueladd (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure this is what you are asking, but in the US the states New Mexico (Q1522) and Utah (Q829) are linked by shares border with (P47) in a way that mentions Four Corners Monument (Q3888479) - similarly for Arizona and Colorado which also meet only at a point. So I think the answer to your question is yes, they do qualify. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #230

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • The property talk namespace now has subpages enabled (phabricator:T146271)
    • More work on automated sitelinks for Wiktionary (phabricator:T987)
    • More work on federation for Commons in order to be able to use Wikidata's items and properties there (phabricator:T76007)
    • Adding entity usage information in action=edit on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T144921)
    • Working on making it possible to get formatted values back on the client. With this we will for example link the value to a Wikipedia article where possible. (phabricator:T142940)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Detailed lists of monuments in Pompeii

 
Notable?

Hi all,

I am working on the migration of Italian WLM lists to Wikidata and I have a question about notability. We have detailed lists of all the buildings in Pompeii (e.g. here), but many buildings are just "houses" or "shops" with no further specification and obviously no wikilinks. Such elements though do have references to external sites (although not to the official site) and are included in the WLM lists. Can they be inserted as items in Wikidata along with their WLM IDs and statements about their location (e.g. location Regio I degli scavi archeologici di Pompei, which already exists as an item)? Nvitucci (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

They are each well documented in external sources, so eminently notable. Go ahead. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
If a file in commons shows a picture of X, then there's a valid sitelink to Commons and it's notable under (1) and (3) of the notability policy. Supporting WLM is also a structural need under (3). There are likely also some serious&reliable sources from Google Maps, Bing Maps, to various documents in city planning that should make buildings notable under (2). ChristianKl (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
"If a file in commons shows a picture of X, then there's a valid sitelink to Commons and it's notable under (1) and (3) of the notability policy" Are you sure about that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that's what the sitelink criteria is about. When we want Wikidata - Commons integration there's no reason to set any policy barriers that make that integration harder. ChristianKl (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Would that be the criterion which says 1. It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on... Wikimedia Commons. To be valid, a link must not be a... file...? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, then it might not fall under (1) but there still (3). Being able to state what object a file represents is a structual need. ChristianKl (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I refer you to the example picture, above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Not all of them have links to images in Commons, so probably (1) does not apply (yet). They have indeed external references as Andy confirmed. Nvitucci (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Entries in monuments lists are fine.
--- Jura 22:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I created an example here. If it looks like making sense, I'll proceed with the creation of all the other items. Nvitucci (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nvitucci: It should have instance of (P31) - you could create an item specially, then use, say, "instance of ruin at Pompeii". If possible, please also add an English-language label and description - that will make it more likely that people will translate into other languages. Can you include precise coordinates? You should also be able to add (say) "significant event - burial" with date qualifier. It would be worth waiting a day or two for other suggestions, before proceeding,. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'll add a instance of (P31) of an Italian cultural heritage item as well, but as for English labels and descriptions it will not be easy to do automatically (at least as a "first round"); same goes for qualifiers. As for coordinates, we don't have any at the moment (some will most probably be added later). Nvitucci (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There is also a more specific property, namely heritage designation (P1435) that could be used in place of instance of (P31), but I had some doubts that I mentioned here: what do you think about it? Nvitucci (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Everything should have either instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279). That's not to say heritage designation (P1435) shouldn't be used as well. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I mentioned it because heritage designation (P1435) is a subproperty of instance of (P31). I saw that "instance of (P31) ruins" has been added, which is fine and makes sense for Pompeii. So, it looks sensible to add "heritage designation (P1435) Italian national heritage site" to each item from WLM lists; more specific classes for instance of (P31) (e.g. castle, church, fountain etc.) are less easy to assign automatically, so they can be added afterwards in some cases? Nvitucci (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nvitucci: Not sure this subproperty claim is a good idea. As far as I know, the tools that detects the subclasses does not use this, first thing, and second thing : are all statuses classes of monuments ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I'm not sure what you mean. The use of this subproperty is recommended with the use of Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) and it is not to be used with classes of monuments (say, castles and churches). Nvitucci (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Sorry, I think now I get it. You were referring to the claim itself, not to its usage; I agree that it is (was) weird. Nvitucci (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've removed subproperty of instance of (P31) from heritage designation (P1435). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. Although I get the reason why the subproperty claim was introduced, I always find it strange when properties such as instance of (P31) (or rdf:type) are specialized. Nvitucci (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been reverted - without explanation - by User:Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
A) this keeps track of all the "instance of" look-alikes (which may or may not be suitable for deprecation--I'll suggest that in the majority case, they are not suitable, just so you know the intent of that statement) and B) indicates to data users (internal or external) that they can use the phrases synonymously. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: this discussion is starting to be really messy ... This is acknowledging that we assimilate any heritage status item to the class of all monuments/sites that have this status. Is that your intent ? just to clarify, no opposition to that. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Indeed. --Izno (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's only a component of an "Italian national heritage site", I wouldn't add Q26971668 in P1435 (or p31). "Part of" seems to be the way to link it to the site, but maybe a more accurate statement about its status can be made.
--- Jura 16:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I see what you mean and actually I agree. The presence of heritage designation (P1435) is recommended when Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) is used, but this (single "houses" of Pompeii ruins) is a more special case. Anyway I think that there is a description problem for Q26971668: "Italian cultural property" would be probably better as a label since it is meant as an item of the cultural heritage, not necessarily a place. Nvitucci (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The English label of Q26971668 might not match the Italian one. If in doubt, use Italian only ;)
--- Jura 05:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added an English label, "Pompeii I.1.1", based on [6]. That should be computable. It can be changed to an alias when a better label is available. I've also added "I.1.1" as a catalog code (P528), which needs a better catalog (P972) qualifier, for the catalogue described at [7] - do we have an item for that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
If you mean that "I.1.1" is computable then yes, it is: I did it for the Italian label in the same way. I'm not aware of an item for the catalogue you have linked; a few days ago I searched for references of such numbering system in an official catalogue, but I haven't found any. Since the lists are basically built using this website (which is the "external site" I mentioned in the first post) as a source, if it's deemed "good enough" the catalogue item can be created and used. Nvitucci (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Not sure if it's a good idea to add some random computed text as English label. I think the Italian one should do. There do seem to be two entries for "Caupona di Epagatus".
--- Jura 05:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thing is that in some cases (e.g. "Bottega" or "Ingresso" without other details) it is easy to automatically translate the label to English (e.g. to "Shop" and "Entrance" respectively), while other cases might need to be dealt with manually. By the way, what do you mean with "there are two entries"? Nvitucci (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The lists I found have two, probably adjacent lots named after Epagatus.
--- Jura 07:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the second one, but yes, this might happen - that's why I added the "I.1.1" to the label as well (even more useful when you want to tell a generic "Shop" apart from another one). Nvitucci (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
"Not sure if it's a good idea to add some random computed text as English label." Indeed it would not be; which is why I did not suggest doing anything like that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a reference of what a Pompeii item should have according to the discussion so far; I will edit this should there be any changes, then when there is agreement I'll proceed to the creation of all the items using it as a guideline.

The reference for these claims should be imported from Wikimedia project (P143) Wiki Loves Monuments Italia (Q19960422).

Nvitucci (talk) 08:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to add the date of destruction; and its cause. Also, if possible the "significant event"="excavation";"point in time"=[date]. I've done that on your example, Caupona of Epagatus (I.1.1) (Q26961007). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
This information is not included into the lists. I am talking about claims that can be inserted using the WLM lists as a source plus some "common knowledge" (e.g. the instance-of ruins claim). Surely this can be done manually (or by gathering such information with other methods). Nvitucci (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Date and cause of destructions are surely common to them all? I'm not sure if that's true of the excavations, hence "if possible". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

About catalog code: The qualifier is "catalog" (P972) and the value is "Pompeji". As far as I have understood, a new item should be created for the webpage http://pompeiiinpictures.com which will be the new value. I have seen this catalog has pages like http://pompeiiinpictures.com/pompeiiinpictures/R1/1%2013%2002.htm Maybe they could be inserted into WD too? --Molarus 19:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that pompeiiinpictures.com uses the catalogue, but is not the source of it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems you are right. Here it says: "Pompeii has been divided up into Regions or Regio by the archaeologists, based on a methodology devised by Fiorelli in the 1860s." He is this one: en:Giuseppe Fiorelli. I could not find on the internet how that "catalogue" is called. The Information about "Changes and renumbering" is interesting too. Maybe there should be a qualifier only if there is more then one number. What is with names, for example the ones at it:Regio I degli scavi archeologici di Pompei? They have changed sometimes too. There are wikipedia articles like it:Casa dei Vettii (Pompeii VI.15.1), a system different to "Pompeii I.1.1". There has to be a connection between both and I don´t know if that should be done with the alias names. --Molarus 20:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was saying a few messages ago. I've looked for an official list using this numbering system but I couldn't find any. I will try and ask around. So this means we can't use a catalog right now, or can we? Nvitucci (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it is enough if the number is in the label "Pompeii VI.15.1" or in the alias name "I.1.1". Are you sure it would not be better to say "Pompeii I.1.1" in the alias name? The reason is that I can search for "Pompeii I.1.1" and it does not matter if it is written in the label or in the alias name, I will find that item. You can check that with searching for "Casa dei Vettii" and "Pompeii VI.15.1". You should be able to find the item with both ways. By the way, I have found at this list de:Liste_von_Gebäuden_in_Pompeji at the bottom the number "HGW24" outsides the gates of Pompeii. The author of this list seems to be a trusted editor. I have thought about getting all this items with SPARQL and maybe P361 "Insula x della Regio y" could be used for that. We will get soon code to print the content of items as lists into Wikipedia. Maybe it could be done this way. PS: We already have Template:Wikidata list (example at User:Magnus Manske/test1), which a user has coded. It is available in many wikipedias. --Molarus 19:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
We can create an item for the catalogue now, and add the name and author, etc, later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
@Molarus: Actually having "Pompeii x.y.z" as an alias can be a good idea. I have added the number in the label because in many cases the building is described as "Shop" or "House without name", so there would be a series of items called just "Shop" otherwise. I could try and add the number in the label only in such cases, and not do that otherwise.
@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I can do that. Can you suggest a "good" catalogue item to use as an example? Nvitucci (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I created this catalogue and already used it in the Caupona of Epagatus item. Any suggestions are welcome. Nvitucci (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do you have already thought about how to do that? There might be 2000 items to create and I think you want to insert those items into the lists at it:WP. All that can´t be done by hand, it would last many months. --Molarus 21:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and that is why I always asked about pieces of information that can be added automatically. In fact I am going to do it in a few minutes for the whole Insula 1 from Regio I as a new and more complete example; if that is ok, I will do it for all the >2000 items. Nvitucci (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is a query to get all the buildings and entrances from regio I (at the moment limited to insulae 1 and 22 for testing purposes): 

SELECT ?q ?label ?insula
WHERE {
  ?q wdt:P361/wdt:P361 wd:Q3931883;
     wdt:P361/rdfs:label ?insula;
     rdfs:label ?label .
  FILTER (LANG(?label) = "it" && LANG(?insula) = "it")
}
Try it!

Your SPARQL-query helps. I don´t know how to add the item <Q175836> (Thermopolium) to 'Pompeii I.1.9'. Maybe as second "is a" (P31)? There is also 'Hospitium' <Q16844937> and 'popina' <Q3397950>. Would that be OK? I have written a short bot-script to search in commons:Category:Cultural_heritage_monuments_in_Campania for a picture, but it seems there are no for regio 1, insulae 1. --Molarus 12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We have a few generic categories such as commons:Category:Houses_in_Regio_I_of_Pompeii, commons:Category:Shops+in+Regio+I+of+Pompeii, and commons:Category:Regio+I+of+Pompeii, I planned to add them later on (there might come some more specific ones once WLM is over). Regarding the new classes you suggest: I think instance of (P31) is fine, so as for me you can go ahead. Nvitucci (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Just for looking if there is any value in creating an imagemap, I have done one at my userpage User:Molarus. All the insulars in regio 1 are clickable. I have added at insular 1 all the 10 domus. P527 (has part) is the inverse property of "part of" (P361) (You can read that at the discussion page of the property). Maybe you should give each item an english label too and the alias text only if there is a label like "Casa degli amanti". --Molarus 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The map looks very nice, good job! I know about inverse properties and I'm still thinking how to deal with English labels, but I'll do all that in a "second round". If there's consensus now, I'd like to add all the buildings first. Nvitucci (talk) 10:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"second round" is good. From my side, go on. --Molarus 11:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nvitucci: I have done more work on that imagemap and I have seen some differences between the commons picture and pompeiiinpictures.com. That means some items should have two statements about the catalog: each says it is part of regio A insula B according to catalog X, source Z. And we can give one statement a "preferred" rank, because this way the module wikidata knows which statement to take. --Molarus 13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Molarus Can you give an example? Nvitucci (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Nvitucci Pompeii VI.17 ends next to Pompeii VI.4, while at the picture it ends next to Pompeii VII.6. The spare part is now part of Pompeii VII.16. That insula had no number at the picture. A second difference is that there seems to be a road at Pompeii III.7 at the picture, while there is no road at pompeiiinpictures. Maybe another point: Outside the city walls at Necropoli di Porta Ercolano, the picture is a bit vague, while pompeiiinpictures shows tombs, shops and the villas.--Molarus 11:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I said above "I've added an English label, "Pompeii I.1.1", based on [8]. That should be computable. It can be changed to an alias when a better label is available". Why are you not adopting that model? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Because I think that that label is ready to be used as an alias, while the "real" label can be computed in a slightly better way and be more informative - but that is a work in progress. I preferred delaying a little bit the addition of the labels rather than having to change them all in bulk afterwards. Nvitucci (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
If a name or identifier is "ready to be used as an alias", and there is no other label yet available, then it should be used as the label. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking at Garden of the fugitives (Pompeii) (Q27070614), the date of destruction, 79, should be Julian, not Gregorian, and should be more precise than just a year. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the corresponding Wikidata item, the Gregorian calendar is used instead. Regarding the precision of the date: since there are still debates about the day and month and there's a link to the event itself, I don't think it's so crucial a detail to justify a more complex qualifier. Nvitucci (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

André de Gouveia (Q523544)

Hello, there's obviously some kind of a problem with this item as its only Identifier is from ULAN, as an "architect active ca. 1548" whereas he was a pedagogue who died in 1548. 135.84.127.162 19:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the identifier seems a bit off. (Unless he died on the job?) But the item is still valid as per WD:N, it's just a case of better referencing the statements I imagine. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a mismatch. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Died on the job because of too many constraints: flourish as an architect after having been a scholar of his life? Cause of death: stress… Nah, mismatch! Gouveia is quite a common name. 185.137.19.238 02:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Hehe. Who else would the ULAN identifier be referring to though? A mistake in the identifier seems most likely to me, though I admittedly don't know much about that one. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Top goalscorer and tv network

Hello.

1) Is there a property which I can use to show the Top goalscorer of a league?

2) Is there a property which I can use to show the tv network of a league?

Xaris333 (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the second question, not that I am aware of but a "Broadcast rights holder" property seems like it would be a useful thing to have, e.g.
⟨ Sports league ⟩ broadcast rights holder Search ⟨ Sky Sports ⟩
applies to jurisdiction (P1001)   ⟨ United Kingdom (Q145)      ⟩
applies to part (P518)   ⟨ live television (Q431102)      ⟩
⟨ Sports league ⟩ broadcast rights holder Search ⟨ BBC ⟩
applies to jurisdiction (P1001)   ⟨ United Kingdom (Q145)      ⟩
applies to part (P518)   ⟨ highlights ⟩
. 13:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


@Thryduulf:, @Edgars2007:. Is there a way to show in a players page that he was the top goalscorer of a season? For example Sotiris Kaiafas (Q351862) was the top goalscore of 1973–74 Cypriot First Division (Q2736753). We also have Cypriot First Division top goalscorers (Q16327504) (that can be rename to "top goalscorers in Cypriot First Division by season" if that can help). For the same player I can use award received (P166) for winning the European Golden Shoe (Q233454) on 1976. I just want a way to do the same with the top goalscorer honour. Xaris333 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe simply wait for that property to be created (statistical leader) and place that statement on season's item not duplicating that info on player's item? Otherwise use it on P166. --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I have done it this way [9]. Xaris333 (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Distinctions between national park areas and national parks

I've been scanning the national parks of England and Wales. I notice that several have a single Wikipedia page/Wikidata item representing both the geographic area and the national park:

  • Dartmoor
  • Exmoor
  • Lake District
  • New Forest
  • North York Moors
  • The Broads
  • Peak District

These have just national park pages/items:

  • Northumberland National Park
  • Pembrokeshire Coast National Park

These have Wikipedia pages for both the area and the park separately:

  • Brecon Beacons
  • South Downs
  • Yorkshire Dales

I would appreciate some input on whether there should be Wikidata items simply matching the pages, or whether there is logic in having items for area and separately the national parks for each one. There are cases where there are clear differences (which are mentioned in the Wikipedia artices). Pauljmackay (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Having items for both makes a sense but it's not important. The area exists in it's nature even before the inception of the park.ChristianKl (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why the issue is "not important". The area of a national park is specifically designated and regulated, whereas the geographic area is more generally defined. It is quite possible that the area and the park are not identical. For example, the Brecon Beacons Park includes not only includes the Brecon Beacons (area), but also the Blorenge which most people would not regard as part of the Brecon Beacons (area). In reverse, not all of the Pembrokeshire Coast (area) is included in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. In addition, there is usually a statutory governing body, for example the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority. These get a passing mention in the wikipedia articles but have quite wide ranging powers/contact information etc that would be best described in a (third) wikidata item. Robevans123 (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
In a case where the area isn't directly the same having items that distinguish them is important. In general that's however not true for all parks so, so I don't think it's a priority to create items for every park in existence that makes the distinction. I however have no problem with running a bot that does this. ChristianKl (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You should create different items and then use located in protected area (P3018) to link mountains, lakes and other things within the park to the park. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The only things like this I can remember working on are the Antarctic protected areas, and I've been merging these only where there's a fairly solid 1:1 match between the protected area and a geographical item.
I'd certainly agree that having separate items when the park and the geographical area don't quite match up is the best idea, especially when it's a bit of a fuzzy term applied generally to a region (like the Lake District or the Dales). I think all the UK national parks would fall into this category and thus need two items, but some of the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or SSSIs might match neatly to an existing geographic item - for example, there's one covering the entire archipelago of Isles of Scilly (Q180209), so having one item there makes sense. Conversely, Isle of Wight AONB (Q15228878) only covers half the island, so a separate item is essential.
In general, if there's any ambiguity over the boundaries, then I'd definitely support two items. But if they're clearly the same area defined in the same way, I don't see any reason not to merge them. Happy to be convinced otherwise, though! Andrew Gray (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I think this would be really clear if we had two distinct concept : one for the geographical region, one for the human jurisdiction (the national park) in each cases. We definitely needs a property to link them. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

place of death (P20) when a person died on sea

What to set as place of death (P20) when a person died on a ship/during a ship accident (or at another somewhat "uncommon" place)? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Atlantic Ocean (Q97), Mediterranean Sea (Q4918), etc. ?
—MisterSynergy (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
So fix the constraints. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
city (Q515) is subclass of (P279) geographic location (Q2221906) via a longer path, and the very first allowed value type in this list. In general this property seems to be quite healthy, with only ~1% of ~500.000 usages having an non-permitted type. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
For that case, since the coordinates of the ship are known, you could add them as a qualifier to indicate the exact spot in the sea/ocean. I wonder if vessel (P1876) would also make sense as a qualifier. - Nikki (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There have been at least two previous discussions about this:

Thanks, will look at it (later). —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

original broadcaster (P449)

original broadcaster (P449) seems to be very US-centric: in most other countries people know programs from their actual channel. According to the constraint report, it is also being used mostly for that. For example: only 3940 of 26521 statements are television networks. Should we split this property up? Why shouldn't we include the "re-runs or additional syndication"? And what to do with the situation in the Netherlands, where we have member-based broadcasting associations that broadcast on channels? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The English label for original broadcaster (P449) should really be something like "original broadcaster", that is how the property is currently defined, and how it is being used. Danrok (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

See also property?

Hello. Is there any "see also" property for items? Or something like that. I want in the page Top Premier League goal scorers by season (Q7824589) to add the Premier League (Q9448). (related property (P1659) is only for properties.) Xaris333 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Maybe facet of (P1269) … —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
There is not and there should not be. There are relations that can be expressed as statements. It is really ambiguous why and when we should use such a property. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think facet of (P1269) is ok. Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Items such as Top Premier League goal scorers by season (Q7824589) only exist because someone at a Wikipedia outsourced this part of information from another article, and we keep items for any kind of Wikipedia articles. When considered as last resort, facet of (P1269) is indeed okay for such cases. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
We have many pages about top goalscorers. For example, Cypriot First Division top goalscorers (Q16327504). Xaris333 (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources for company data

The verifiability of company information is crucial to enable reuse. I thought that statements like total revenue (P2139) or employees (P1128) would automatically need sources. But now I'm in a discussion, where someone is disputing this. What do you think: Is is necessary to fix this as rule? E.g. "Numbers need sources"?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Companies aren't in the same sense worthy of privacy protection that living people are. Wrong numbers about revenue nor numbers about headcount also don't see libelous to me but simply errors. The justifaction for the living people policy doesn't apply to companies. ChristianKl (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Changed my question. I've never wanted to to compare companies with living people.--Kopiersperre (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think deleting the question is a good way to have a conversation as it makes it harder for people who join to follow the discussion. Anybody who wants to reuse information can simply ignore unsourced claims and is not harmed by the existence of unsourced statements. ChristianKl (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems weird to me, that Wikidata is not putting more emphasis on the sources. Without sources a statement is just an allegation. And I thought Wikidata was to solve the problems of Wikipedia.--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
A Wikipedia that only wants to import sourced statements can do so and the unsourced statements about company information aren't doing any harm for that use case. Wikidata doesn't exist for a single use case. If certain data isn't valuable to you that doesn't mean that it might not be valuable for someone else. There's nothing to be gained by being exclusive. ChristianKl (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Sources are important, but data about company headcount, revenue, assets or owners are not enough sensitive to justify removal of those unsourced. Note also that unfortunately sourcing at wikidata is complicated and painful, so it worth to come though this complicated process for mass imports, but for single statement it is very time consuming.--Jklamo (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Big data improvement for chemicals

Just to announce you than thanks to the work of Sebotic, Wikidata increases its coverage of chemicals with a total of ~98'000 chemicals having an item (two month ago we had ~22'000 items about chemicals). All data were imported from PubChem and ChEBI datbases and respect the rules about sources leading to a high improvement of the data quality. Right now an important step has to start to curate the data especially to merge duplicated items. You are welcome to take part to this action and you can get in touch with the Chemistry project in WD for details.

From that work additional importations can start in order to add more identifiers but please announce your intention of data import before any huge importation in order to coordinate the work of bots with the one of contributors curating the item conflicts. Snipre (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PetScan

Can anyone help me with PetScan? See [10]. I want the results to have the Spanish label of the wikidata pages for all items. Some items don't have Spanish labels. Xaris333 (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In "other sources" (Άλλες πηγές), choose "Wikidata" in "Use wiki" (Χρήση wiki). Keep this in mind as it's one of the most FAQ's regarding PetScan. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Add label

Hello. I have a column with Q numbers of items and a column of labels in a specific language. Is there a way to add the labels easily? Not by hand one by one? Xaris333 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Quick statements. --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
...hidden under QuickStatements (Q20084080). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, no idea why Magnus puts noindex on most of his tools. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Check out and endorse the GLAMpipe project!

GLAMpipe metadata manipulation & upload tool is an extensible, open source web-application for cultural metadata. It is aimed for data-savvy wikimedians and data partners. It gives the user the power of bots without the need to code.

Nodes are the building blocks of the data flow. A node can act as a data source, it can split, combine, create wikitext or process data in other ways, and a node can export data to files or web services like Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata. Nodes can be created, altered and shared by the users, making it possible to build upon work by others.

We are applying for a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation to create an online, collaborative version and the possibility of preparing and importing data to Wikidata. Read more about the project, and endorse it at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/GLAMpipe

Best regards, Ari, Kimmo and Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Support of translatewiki.net

Hello.Why Wikidata does not support translatewiki.net (Unlike Commons)?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What kind of support would you want? ChristianKl (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Linking page with its counterparts in items --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Translatewiki.net is not hosted on the Wikimedia servers and isn't officially connected with Wikimedia. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Sjoerddebruin Thank you.I love mergers (all wikis) so I asked this question --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: We have had discussions about hosting the site but it has never happened. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

See all labels of an item

Hello. How can I can see all the labels in any language of an item? I want only to see the languages that have label about the item. Xaris333 (talk) 10:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a link below the labels & description box on all item pages, reading “All entered languages”. This unfolds the box and shows all entered labels, descriptions and aliases. There is also a gadget called “labelLister” which you can activate in your preferences. It then shows an additional tab left to the search box with information about labels etc. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you know why in the list of the labels I can see a language that has no label? Xaris333 (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It either has a description or an alias (or both) in that language, or it is one of the very few (typically 2–4) languages which the software identifies as best suited for you. In the latter case you should already see it before you unfold the box. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Its Lithuanian language. Its weird. Xaris333 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Which item? (Please always give the example in question; unless there is a specific reason not to.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
In every item. For example 2015–16 Cypriot Cup (Q20645820). Xaris333 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I can confirm that Q20645820 has no Lithuanian label, description nor alias. Are you in or near Lithuania? In any case, you may be able to resolve this by putting a "WD:Babel" template on your user page, with the languages you do read & write. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I am far away. Ok, thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Fourth Birthday userbox

 This user celebrated Wikidata's 4th birthday.

Here you go: {{User Wikidata birthday 2016}}. Translations needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the wikitext output of the action=wbformatvalue API

Hey folks,

we will soon change how Wikibase outputs data as Wikitext per default. This might affect users of the action=wbformatvalue API that either use generate=text/x-wiki or omit the generate parameter (Wikitext output is the default for that API module). I briefly looked through our API logs in order to see how many users will be affected by this and found that no one uses this feature (T147591).

Please note that for our internal functionality (like the property parser function, or the Lua functionality), we made sure that the output wont change.

Only the output obtained via the wbformatvalue-API module might change! - Hoo man (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced sexual orientation (P91) statements

sexual orientation (P91) is a property which requires sensitive use, and its talk page particularly states that it should be used “only together with a reference in that the person itself states her/his sexual orientation or for historical persons if most historians agree”. Using this SPARQL query, I can find 4790 violations of this rule (5560 property uses in total, thus 86% violation rate). The issue came to my attention because two days ago a Wikidata user added almost 2000 new violations by a data import from enwiki and eswiki (see this complex violations report diff).

What to do now? It appears unlikely that someone adds the required sources to the statements in question, although parts of the imported data are probably properly sourced at enwiki or eswiki. I would therefore propose to remove all unsourced sexual orientation (P91) statements in the very near future, given the fact that we use this property almost exclusively in case of non-heterosexuality (Q339014) (usage statistics). —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This was discussed recently. Such values should not be removed, without first making efforts to source them - not least by checking the originating Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to the recent discussion? This does not seem fair to me. Someone made a mass import, violated a clearly stated rule and now other Wikidata users should do the difficult part of the job, which is a manual verification and addition of sources? The information of the unsourced statements would not be lost after a possible removal, since it is mostly still available in Wikipedias. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
+1 This is not the task of other contributors to correct or complete data from previous contributions especially when the initial import was not respecting a constraint. The only way to teach people the respect of the rules isto delete their work when it is not complying with the rules. Snipre (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I think more people said this and just a few had the same opinion as Pigsonthewing. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/08#Unsourced and Wikipedia sourced P91 statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The positions in this discussion were pretty much the same as here, with roughly the same number of users on both sides. If we now went with the "manually check before remove" scenario, how could that ever work out? I don’t see a chance that anybody solves the problem this way, but I am open to hear suggestions by anyone… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Thryduulf made a very useful suggestion in the linked discussion about ranking statements without sources. In the case under discussion, the edits would fall under group 1, and should be deleted within a short space of time. Not sure what the definition of a short space of time would be (a couple of days?), but if people want to keep unsourced, potentially libellous and defamatory, controversial data, then provide a reliable source. Robevans123 (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Restating that suggestion with slight refinement, as I think it warrants more discussion than it got. The idea is that the combination of property and class of item (e.g. living people / long-deceased people / inanimate objects / etc) will provide a default level, which can be tweaked based on the claim in the context of the individual item. For example a claim about the religion of a Catholic cardinal is not controversial and doesn't need immediate sourcing (unless it's something other than some flavour of Catholicism), a claim about the religion of a US presidential candidate very much does require strong sourcing. Because of the way the Wikidata UI works, immediate sourcing is not reasonable requirement of a manual human editor. I make no comment about editors using bots, etc as I have no experience. The levels I propose are:
Level 0 - Source is provided
The statement has one or more reliable sources associated with it, no further action is required.
Level 1 - Source always required
The statement will be deleted if a source is not provided within a short time (24 hours?) of the statement being added. This should only be used for a very few properties by default and almost never when used for deceased people);
Level 2 - Source almost always required
The statement will normally be deleted if a source is not provided within a reasonably short time (2-3 days?) but exceptions are possible based on common sense, especially for deceased people. This should not be used by default on many properties.
Level 3 - Source should be provided
Statements should be accompanied by a source but they will not be routinely deleted without consideration of the circumstances. Where a source is given as "imported from [a] Wikipedia", the given Wikipedia should be checked before deletion. This should be default many, perhaps most, properties that are not external ids or other links external sources. Where possible, editors should be alerted and given reasonable time to find sources before deletion.
Level 4 - Low priority
Statements should be accompanied by a source but they will not normally be deleted unless verification has failed or the statement is implausible. Only properties that will rarely be controversial should be at this level by default, but it is appropriate for statements such as a person's being a specific religion or nationality, etc. if their membership of a group open only to people of a specific religion, nationality is not in doubt (e.g. the religion of a Roman Catholic cardinal is not controversial, nor the nationality of a 20th Century US president).
Level 5 - self-sourcing
No independent source is required. Most (all?) external identifiers should be at this level by default, but it also applies to other self-sourcing properties, e.g. the title of creative works hosted on Wikisource on the items about the work, or "instance of" statements on items about Wikimedia disambiguation pages.
This proposal does requires a moderate amount of initial work to assign the levels, and some ongoing work to maintain them (but the latter should not be a big task). I have got no idea how to mark them though (would it require developer time?). My feeling is that the setting or changing the level of a property should be something that should be restricted to established users at a level similar to rollbacker granted by administrators on request to anyone who they feel is unlikely to abuse it. Administrators would also have the abiltiy to revoke the right. Maybe the reviewer right could be use for this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Basically a Source [is] always required. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Succu: No. A source is required for levels 1-4, but with decreasing urgency and increasing requirements to look for sources before deleting unsourced statements. Sources are not required for level 5. Also, sources can be inferred in some cases - e.g. if there is a source statement that Joe Smith is a member of an organisation that only admits bisexuals then it is not at all urgent to provide a source for the statement that Joe Smith is a bisexual. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
It's an unnecessary bureaucratic approach which has the potential to raise conflicts. --Succu (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I like the idea of such an approach, but this proposal seems to be too complicated. 2 levels of properties are basically enough: (1) requires sources, and statements must be removed if source is not provided after a short time, and (2) requires sources, but we "permanently" accept data without (I ignore authority control properties here). P91 and very few other things such as P140 would be case (1), the vast majority of properties case (2), regardless of which items are affected. If particular statements require sources for other reasons, we should have another rule.
To provide a path for a solution: we could perhaps use the constraints on the property talk pages to define actions in case of lacking sources. Example: P91 has a complex constraint template, which if mandatory could already be enough to enforce data removal after a waiting time to be defined. We just need to write down such a rule at an appropriate page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: while simplification is obviously superficially attractive, reality is much more complicated than the binary (or trinary) you propose and it wont scale when you start to think about properties other than simply sexual orientation (P91), and data removal should never happen without a check by a human to determine whether the claim is actually unsourced (e.g. a source hasn't been added since the query results were last updated) and if it is, whether that can be trivially fixed - for example it took about 2 minutes to source the P91 statement for Mhairi Black (Q19863151) and less than half of that was finding a source. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
We are talking about 5000 unsourced statements here, which amounts to more than 200 man-hours of work if we added sources to all of them at your rate (equivalent to 5 weeks of fulltime employment!). Let's face reality: nobody will ever invest this amount of time. We either remove the data, or the constraint of required sources is useless. Whoever wants to have this data at Wikidata can re-add the statement again within a couple of seconds. I really don't like the idea of data removal, but given the fact that P91 is indeed somewhat delicate, I don't see another option. Btw. I don't think our positions are that far apart: I did not talk about your #0 and #5, our #1 have same intentions, but I just did not differentiate your #2-#4. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
In this case the problem is that can be potentially defamatory, maybe already said but I think that we must delete all this data without source. --ValterVB (talk) 16:46, 27 September 20Q34752816 (UTC)
Project:Be bold (Q3916099) MisterSynergy: Remove them. --Succu (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, please remove them. Either we require the claims to be sourced immediately or we don't (as we generally do). While the description and the creation of the property is confusing, it seems clear that we require sourcing here and that the contributor has no intention of adding them. -- Jura 02:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
But if you do remove them, please, go on removing all unsourced dates of birth, places of residence etc. I am strongly against the special treatment of P91. – Máté (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, any other problematic statements should be removed as well. It's somewhat rare for DOB, but still.
--- Jura 06:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Date of birth is an interesting case indeed, which is publicly debated at the moment due to a new Californian law according to which websites (particularly IMDb) must remove this data upon request of an actor. They found that there is some age discrimination of actors in Hollywood, and one easily comes to the conclusion that in most other businesses of this world the situation is probably similar. However, I still support treating P91 (and few others) differently. Fact is that basically all sexual orientations other than heterosexuality (and this is what we collect here) lead to massive discrimination and legal/social threats in most parts of this world, way beyond anything which results from public date of birth data which can typically be infered from other public information to some extent anyway. We should therefore only accept and permanently keep this P91 information if the person itself had a public coming-out, proven by the reference. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm against removing unsourced dates of birth and residence statements. Dates of birth and residence statements are often quite important to distinguish different people with the same name.
Furthermore I don't think "be bold" should apply to mass deletion content without a consensus that it should be deleted. Probably RfC consensus. ChristianKl (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Now again, deceased people are quite unlikely to mind any discrimination against them resulting from an unsourced Wikidata statement. – Máté (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we had no input in this thread for some days now, which means that there is still no concept how to solve this situation other than data removal. I’d wait for another day for input, but from tomorrow on I would suggest to be bold and remove unsourced P91 data without further manual checking due to the large amount of affected data. Properties other than P91 with the same problem should be discussed here at WD:PC first before we start to be bold there as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I would agree on the removal, though would suggest that a report is generated of the removals (pre or post).  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I think an revision of Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P91 would do. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Good points, billinghurst and Sjoerddebruin. Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P91 contains exactly the items which would be affected by the removal procedure in the very first step. I think we should leave a permanent note on Property talk:P91 after data removal, containing a diff link to the complex constraint violations page after it has been reduced to the purged state. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I will soon start with the removal of unsourced statements, using this results set with Autolist; with only one edit every 10 seconds it will take some hours to work through all affected items. If other users or bot operators want to help, please let me know. If you see the removal of a statement you’d like to keep on your watchlist, feel free to add it again including a valid source according to this rule: Property talk:P91#Rules for Usage. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that Autolist doesn't support any comments in the edit summary, I think that is needed to avoid edits wars. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Correct, the best would be to have a customized edit summary which states the reason for the removal and links to this discussion. However, I don’t know which tool to use other than Autolist or a bot (I don’t have one). If you think we should use a bot to provide reasonable edit summaries, we need to find an operator :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced statement removal is finished now. I omitted items about fictional characters, so that the complex constraint violations page will not be empty tomorrow. At Property talk:P91 you can find a query to identify new violations on items about humans. In total, only three removals have been reverted and subsequently equipped with a source. Other than that there were no complaints until now.

There is now the question what to do with imported from Wikimedia project (P143)-sourced statements. Formally, those are considered as “unsourced”, yet they at least provide a connection to the Wikipedia where this claim stems from. Any idea? I think there are some hundreds of cases we talk about… —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to break down the imported from Wikimedia project (P143) statements by language? It is likely going to be easier for e.g. an English speaker to verify a claim (and import the source from) an English language project than e.g. a Russian one. Similarly if we find that there are only a small number imported from say the Maltese Wikipedia, that becomes a much easier task for a Maltese speaker than a list of several hundreds. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Good idea! This is definitely possible, but we need a SPARQL magician to build that query   Anyone willing? —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
WD:Request a query is good place for this. Anyway:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?value ?valueLabel ?wiki ?wikiLabel {
  ?item p:P91 [ ps:P91 ?value; prov:wasDerivedFrom/pr:P143 ?wiki ] .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } .
} ORDER BY ?wiki
Try it!
Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Matěj Suchánek! Data was almost exclusively imported from enwiki (98%). Which means that almost all of us could do some work here! I propose to wait for another week or so and see whether the amount of P143-sourced claims significantly reduces from its current value of 608. If not, I’ll suggest to remove those as well (adding references to 600 claims is still equivalent of ~25 hrs of work, but let’s see). —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't got time to look at the query results atm, but is that claims that are sourced only by imported from Wikimedia project (P143)? I'm sure I've seen claims with that and an explicit source - those must certainly not be deleted without discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I have looked at a couple of items from the results set and did not find any claim with both a P143 and a real source yet (and I need much more than 2.5 minutes per added source). However, if it really comes to a removal next week, I will look for only-P143-sourced claims of course. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to see how the progress goes. Could anyone please provide a query that lists items with P91 statements, which are P143-“sourced” and do not have any other reference? My Sparql skills are very limited unfortunately (I know Wikidata:Request a query, but let’s keep things simple at one place). Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: That would be this : 

# Could anyone please provide a query that lists items with P91 statements, which are P143-“sourced”

select ?item where {
  ?item p:P91 [
    prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref
  ] .
  ?ref pr:P143 []
  filter not exists { ?ref ?prop [] . filter (?prop != pr:P143)} .
}
Try it!

Not a lot of time ahead so I only checked one result, so there might still be mistakes in the query, but at least one result is correct :) author  TomT0m / talk page 06:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will test a bit whether the results are good. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm, there’s kind of a problem. We have 603 items with a P143-sourced P91 statement. The query gives 602 results, including Derrick Gordon (Q16466466) (which should not be found), and excluding Catrine Telle (Q4982281) (has a “malformed” reference). So I guess this query looks for other properties in the same reference as P143 belongs to, rather than looking for additional references. Is this correct? —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 this one is better 
select ?item where {
  ?item p:P91 [
    prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref
  ] .
  ?ref pr:P143 [] .
  filter not exists {
    ?item p:P91 [
     prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref2 
    ] 
    filter (?ref2 != ?ref ) 
    filter not exists { ?ref2 pr:P143 [] } .
  }
}
Try it!
@MisterSynergy: author  TomT0m / talk page 19:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this one looks good — Thanks a lot! As expected, most (598 of 603) statements only have a P143 source, and nobody spent effort into fixing this during the last week. I’ll wait for another day or two for action, otherwise I think we should remove those as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Full citation for reference

In this edit, is there any (easy) way to make that indicate that the material in question is found on page 19 in the 10th edition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/386932425. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not sure that the diff by Sjoerddebruin is quite right. It should use edition number (P393) rather than volume (P478). I hesitated to insert the values into reasonable accommodation (Q751097) as page 19 seems a bit unlikely for a dictionary of law. Robevans123 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
As noted below, it's a sub-entry under "accommodation". Page 19 runs from accidere to accommodation subpoena; I can send you a scanned copy of the page via e-mail if you'd like to see it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks - I'd read the explanation below - I get it - I really don't need to get proof!   Robevans123 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Yes - add further statements to the reference using properties edition number (P393) and page(s) (P304). Other useful properties for references include publisher (P123), publication date (P577), author (P50), place of publication (P291), (and volume (P478)). And if there is an online version also, reference URL (P854) and retrieved (P813). Robevans123 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be more inclined to add properties that are always the same for a source—such as edition number (P393), publisher (P123), publication date (P577), author (P50), and place of publication (P291)—to the item for the source. I would confine additional qualifiers for the reference to things that will be different each time the source is cited, such as page(s) (P304). The volume (P478) could go either way, depending on the nature of the work, whether every volume had the same author(s), etc. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely - oops - just got carried away after citing a lot of web pages, rather than books, recently... Robevans123 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I've made corrections to the OPs item. According to Help:Sources there should be a separate item for each edition of a book, so I created a new item, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th edition) (Q27221803). Too bad Wikidata can't deal with an apostrophe in the name of an item. I have a personal copy of this book. It turns out that it isn't volume 10, it's edition 10. The reason "reasonable accommodation" appears so early in the book is because it is an additional term under "accommodation". Jc3s5h (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
How does edition number (P393) is supposed to work ? Edition number is tight with the same editor or otherwise the book may have been edited by a of others and the edition number is then totally ambiguous. Is this the edition number in absoute ? On the other hand we have a practice and guidelines of editions having their own items so that we can precisely point to the relevant one. This definitely removes the ambiguity as an edition item has all the relevant informations - dates, editor, and so on. This also make a lot easier the subsequent use of the same edition for citation on other items. Especially with the project of creating an automated tool to make wd sourcing better in mind, I'd totally think the creation of edition items should one usecase that has to be really optimized and painful-less. - I've never used edition number (P393) and I don't intend to. This is not really an information you encounter when you search a book on google book, for example. The ISBN on the over hand is more easy to find. It's scarcely used in items, 7409 statements : query and for stuff like olympic games that are not books. By the following query :
#properties used together with "edition number" by number of uses

select ?qual (count(?qual) as ?num)  where {
  ?stmt prov:wasDerivedFrom ?ref .
  ?ref pr:P393 ?val .
  ?ref ?qual [] .

} group by ?qual
having ( ?qual != pr:P393 )
order by desc(?num)  it's used mostly in reference] with [[Property:P248|stated in&#32;<small dir="ltr">(P248)</small>]]<small> [[File:SQID logo.svg|25px|<span dir="ltr" lang="en">View with SQID</span>|link=https://sqid.toolforge.org/#/view?id=P248&lang=en]]</small>
Try it!
It seems that this is mostly used with stated in (P248)   which totally means an item is cited, so an edition item could be used as well. It's also used a lot with DOI (P356)   which is weird because it seems then redundant as each of the edition should have its DOI (should not it?) author  TomT0m / talk page 12:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that "edition" means "same editor". It's more "same event". An editor could produce multiple issues, and an edition could be edited by dozens of people. In this case, the dictionary is more than a century old, and a new edition (mostly the same book, but with more and different words and updated definitions) is put out every ten years or so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It means "same version" imho - You are right that the work can have mutiple authors who works on it, like a Wikipedia artice, and it stays sententially the same work. An "edition" is a state of the work that is published in some state. Any exact reprint of the stuff can be considered the same edition. If something has changed, words have been modified, images, colors, page numbers, it's another edition. The editor is usually a company that is responsible for the printing and selling of the edition. But the editions are usually numbered on the copies corresponds to editions that occurred by the same editor - he's not supposed to know that some other editor has also edited the same work. What identifies an edition - what we want to know if we want to know if the page number is correct for example, or if the stuffs was indeed in this edition and not in an earlier version, is the pair of information given by the editor and the numbered sequence of its edition. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Since Help:Sources says there should be a separate item for each edition, I believe edition number (P393) should be added to the item for the edition, not to the reference where that edition is cited as a source. The benefit that edition number (P393) gives us over the description of the edition in the label, such as "Black's Law Dictionary (10th edition)" is that it is a machine readable number, which could be used to list the editions in order, and is easier for people who aren't familiar with the language of the label to understand. Also, there are strange quirks with some books, such as the second edition having "Revised Edition" on the title page rather than "2nd edition". Edition number would be easier for people not familiar with the book to understand.
ISBN isn't a good substitute for edition number, because the ISBN will be different for a leather-bound copy, a hardbound copy, a paperback, and an e-book, even though they all have the same contents and the same edition number. Also, traditional citations in scholarly books and journals cite edition numbers, not ISBN, so using edition number lets us know if Wikidata is citing the same version of a book that a scholarly journal is. This might not seem important to someone who likes to operate bots and import items by the thousands, but for editors who spend an hour or more researching a single item, it could be important. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes - it's also used in Wikipedia when citing sources, and would be useful when generating references for use in WP. Basically equivalent to the "edition" parameter of en:template:Cite book. Robevans123 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
But if you're citing a page number, then an ISBN might be handy, as the pagination usually differs between the hardbound, paperback, and e-book versions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the previous post was advocating edition number (P393) over ISBN-10 (P957) or ISBN-13 (P212), just that that an ISBN is not a substitute for an edition number (P393). Basically, add as much specific information as you can to a specific reference, such as page number and chapter (P792), and where possible useful identifiers for the source, such as edition number (P393), ISBN, OCLC control number (P243), publisher (P123), publication date (P577), place of publication (P291) etc. This way, people can easily find the version that was used, or a version close to it. Robevans123 (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Stroke categories in Arabic

Please could an Arabic speaker explain the difference between Category:Deaths from stroke (Q6509490) and Q7215764, and link them (and label the latter in English) accordingly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Item labels that tie to a place

This topic "unitary authority area in England (Q1136601)" seems a bit odd in the way it is named. Should it be something like "English unitary authority"? It might be because its based on a descriptive page about that topic, rather than a more definitive object page like "unitary authority".

Also is it a logical thing to actually have subclasses that are country specific as in this case? I wondered whether the best practice for a council that is an instance of that, to say "instance of: unitary authority" and "country: England". Pauljmackay (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

How many cans of worms can you open in one go?!
But, just to confuse things a bit more, the Ordnance Survey often refers to principal areas as "unitary authorities"...
In Wales, it's fairly simple, the areas are all principal area of Wales (Q15979307), there are 22 of them covering all of Wales, each governed by a unitary authority (Q1160920). The situation in England is more confusing, firstly because the term "principal area" is not widely used (even though it's defined in legislation). The areas are more commonly referred to as non-metropolitan counties, districts or London boroughs, which are all defined as principal areas. All the councils covering these areas should be referred to as unitary authority (Q1160920).
  • unitary authority (Q1160920) is synonomous with "principal council" (again, as defined in the legislation, but not extensively used).Terms such as borough council, district council, and county council are frequently used.
  • Large parts of England are not part of a principal area, but are covered by metropolitan counties and non-metropolitan districts and other entities.
  • Many Wikipedia articles cover a lot of concepts to cover an area. The original (historic) county, the administrative county, the ceremonial county, and the current (local government) county etc, and the borders/history of these can be/are all different. Robevans123 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No label in a specific language

Hello. 1969–70 Cypriot Second Division (Q22812255). Is there a way (by a tool) to check is any of items and properties of that item has no label in a specific language? For example in Spanish. I don't want to read the page and to find the word "inglés". Xaris333 (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea! --Denny (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC) 
SELECT ?prop ?propLabel ?id ?idLabel WHERE {
  wd:Q22812255 ?p ?id .
  ?prop wikibase:directClaim ?p .
   SERVICE wikibase:label {
       bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "es" .
   }
}
Try it!
Something like this. --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Its working. Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

babel en-gb broken

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T63993
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T63995
Declined
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T62824
Resolved

"This user has a native understanding of [[Category:User_en-GB|]]."

The en-gb babel template is saying this, including that ... error at the end. I'm not sure what happened, but I can't seem to find Wikidata:User en-gb. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not just en-gb, but for several other Babel language templates too. I don't know what the cause is, though. Jared Preston (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Numbermaniac, Jared Preston: >>. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Commented out constraint still triggering

The talk page of SoundCloud ID (P3040), which hasn't been edited since 10 August, includes:

<!-- {{Constraint:Type|classes=Q5,Q16334295,Q1076968|relation=instance}} Overly strict? -->

but the corresponding constraint report, updated today, includes "Type human (Q5), group of humans (Q16334295), digital media (Q1076968) violations". Are the comment markers being ignored? Or is the constraint being picked up from elsewhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems that the bot doesn't care about markup. Usually <!--{{Disabled Constraint:...}}--> is the way around. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: Thank you. I've applied that in this case, but it would be good if Ivan's bot was fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Page

Hey, I'm not sure what the rules are here as far as guidelines over additions go. It looks like notability likely isn't a factor here, at least not like it is on the English Wikipedia or in the same way. I did want to give you guys a head's up though, in that we recently had someone with an undisclosed COI try to create an article for this person's book on Wikipedia. I also note that it looks like there's an attempt to slowly add him into various articles on Wikipedia using the WikiData page, so I'm concerned that they might be using this as a way to circumvent notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems like he is notable enough for Wikidata, though. I don't have a feeling that Wikidata is used to circumvent notability guidelines on Wikipedia. The item only lacks some sources for their statements, so it would be great if we could improve that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not so sure, since he is linked from two pages of his own books, one of which is currently nominated for deletion, and another one has been apparently already deleted. If the first one gets deleted, we may delete all three items.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
But the person itself contains 10 identifier properties. Is ISNI also editable by others? Most other identifiers are, so that's why I'm asking. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
His book is edited by Titan Inc. (Q26960468) and in the Wikidata, he is listed as the CEO of Titan. That makes the book self-published, and likely to be unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia or Wikidata. If an otherwise non-notable author created a work that was cited as a source for an item in Wikidata, then the work and the author should both be added to Wikidata. So unless any citations to the book(s) stand up to the scrutiny of other editors, the references, the books, the publisher, and the author can all be deleted. Jc3s5h (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no Wikidata policy that forbids self-published sources. They are not high quality source but they aren't forbidden.
Linking identifiers together is useful for various libraries. VIAF profits from being informed that the INSI number and a ORCID number describes the same person as an existing VIAF number. Both INSI, ORCID and the German National Library (which is the source for the VIAF number) are serious sources.ChristianKl (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, ORCID is about as serious as Facebook or twitter, so I wouldn't count that one for notability. Multichill (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
OrcID that are used in practice by scientific papers to specify the authors of those papers, seem to me serious even if OrcID can also be used for purposes that are less serious. ChristianKl (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Are labels always necessary

Should every item, ultimately, have a set of labels in each language? Or are there some items which should deliberately never have a label, at all? If so, which? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I can’t think of any reason why an item should deliberately never have a label right now, but I guess you have an example in mind?! I’m not sure what happens if you search for an item (using the search box) which has no labels. Might be difficult to find then… —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920)? It's the only case I can think of... --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean with *should*. Could you clarify? ChristianKl (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
That it is best practice. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Supplementary question: Not even if the item has a birth name (P1477) or native label (P1705)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Why would either or those properties mean that a label has no value? ChristianKl (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Labels and descriptions are what ultimately constitutes the identity of an item. I would expect that in a perfect world - besides for some obscure technical purposes - every item would have a label in each language. --Denny (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
In a perfect world, wouldn't it be desireable to have no duplicated data? Thus if a label is the same for multiple languages, the label is only set for one language and all other languages are taking use of the language fallback mechanism. --Pasleim (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

So are we agreed that a taxon with a taxon name (P225) still needs a label, and that, where there is no no vernacular name, the label should be (for languages using the western alphabet, at least) the taxonomic name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between the label being the same as the value of a property and there being no label. I can see benefit though in having some sort of mechanism by which the value of e.g. taxon name is displayed as the item label (including in searches, etc) if no label is explicitly set. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules for classification property

Hello. I am thinking about a "Rules for classification" property but I am not sure how to suggest it. For a football league there are some commons rules like:

and some others like

  • head-to-head points
  • head-to-head goal difference
  • head-to-head away goals scored

Some other sports leagues have some of these rules Some others have some others rules like volleyball (for example: earn sets/lost sets).

And all these are in a specific order. For example, in 2016–17 Cypriot First Division (Q23756432) the Rules for classification are: 1) Points; 2) Head-to-head points; 3) Head-to-head goal difference; 4) Head-to-head goals scored; 5) Head-to-head away goals scored (only if two teams); 6) Goal difference; 7) Goals scored; 8) Play-off (only if deciding championship round, relegation round or relegation).

I really need opinions how to suggest that property.

Xaris333 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at properties for this type (P1963) Pauljmackay (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
How this can help me? Xaris333 (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
So you would add properties for this type (P1963) to the football league item. Then add points for (P1358) and number of points/goals/set scored (P1351), etc as values for that property. So that list then defines a template of properties that any instance of football league should have. Pauljmackay (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think is that I need. Xaris333 (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: @Thryduulf: any ideas? Xaris333 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

My very first thought is to have a new "rules for classification" property which takes items like "points" (or "points scored"), "goals scored", "goals conceded", etc. as values, each with a mandatory series ordinal (P1545) qualifier to determine order in which they are applied. I don't know whether this will work or if there are better solutions, nor do I know how we would structurally define the necessary items. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was also my idea. --Edgars2007 (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I have proposed it this way. Wikidata:Property proposal/rules for classification Xaris333 (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatter URLs requiring API keys

We need to agree a model for showing formatter URL (P1630) values that include API keys.

For example, we currently have:

  • P2690 (P2690) -> http://api.nytimes.com/svc/semantic/v2/concept/name/nytd_per/$1.json?fields=all&api-key=your-API-key

and a proposal for:

using the strings your-API-key and <apikey>, respectively.

We should have a standard, instead of those strings; for example $2. What string should we use?

Where that string is present in a formatter URL, the values for the property should not be linked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored from arhives. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Check consistency of a map

Hi, I need a help from a coder. I tried by myself but I failed.

A place in Pokémon games shares border with (shares border with (P47)) other places in 4 directions, i.e. north (Q659), south (Q667), west (Q679) and east (Q684). I need to check the consistency of maps of Pokémon games.

Some places change from game to game: e.g. Cianwood City (Q3745924) differs from Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal (Q837346) and Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver (Q611189). In fact, if in shares border with (P47) there is a place with qualifier present in work (P1441) it means that that border is present only in that/those game(s). If there is not such qualifier it means that the border is present in all the games defined by statement present in work (P1441).

I need a script that, given by input the Pokémon game (e.g. Pokémon Gold, Silver, and Crystal (Q837346)) checks that the map is consistent: every place is connected by each other and with the correct direction (if a place A shares the northern border with place B, so place B shares the southern border with place A). If there is an error the script should break and report which places don't share the correct border.

Optional: is it possible to visualize the map, in order to eventually check missing data?

Thank you very much in advance. ----★ → Airon 90 14:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@Airon90: I think writing a script is too much for this. Query like this:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?other ?otherLabel ?dirLabel ?otherdirLabel {
  ?item wdt:P1080 wd:Q17562848;
        p:P47 [ ps:P47 ?other; pq:P560 ?dir ] .
  MINUS {
    ?other p:P47 [ ps:P47 ?item; pq:P560/wdt:P461 ?dir ] .
  } .
  OPTIONAL { ?other p:P47 [ ps:P47 ?item; pq:P560 ?otherdir ] } .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } .
}
Try it!
prints some items which are incosistent with others. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Matěj Suchánek, but it seems that it's not enough, as it doesn't recognize the games --

★ → Airon 90 05:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Issues with deletions

Q19590854 was just deleted, as not meting the notability requirements.

As a general issue, I find the deletion problematic (of course I assume good faith on behalf of the deleting admin). The item was on my watchlist, but I don't recall why, or what it was about. There is no way for me to tell, without asking the deleting admin (or another) to look it up for me; as such requests increase that's likely to become burdensome.

Nor was there any advance notification that I saw, that the item was being considered for deletion, and I don't believe the matter was subject of a discussion.

How might we address these issues? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

General issues of deletion policy

Again: How might we address these issues? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Specifics of Q19590854

In this period a deleted a lot of item using the report generated by Pasleim like this. For the specific item the data was the following:
No source, the sitelink was deleted on 23 feb 2016, no backlink --ValterVB (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I've had the same problem today. I think the latest label of a deleted item must be shown in any way.--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That would be risky though, as some deleted items are privacy violations for example. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@ValterVB: Like I said, I wanted to raise a general issue here. However, in this specific case, a Google search for "Craig Silverstein Google" finds plenty of sources. Did you look for any, before deleting? Please restore the item, which clearly meets our notability criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The item needs to have sources though. Saying that they exist isn't enough. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. The item was outside of our notability policy for months, no one has added the sources, so when I have deleted the item, the item wasn't notable. --ValterVB (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
@ValterVB: My question to you was "Did you look for any, before deleting?" Should I take that as a "no"? Anyway, the Wikipedia item has now been restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not what our notability policy says. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If you mean "Have you searched source outside of Wikidata before delete item" the answer is "No" and I don't think that I must do it. --ValterVB (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Same here for Q16465918      No way to tell what it was, no formal warning ... nothing. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Restored because I haven't see reference URL (P854) --ValterVB (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That property should only be used in the source section, though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Seriously, just like that ? What's going on in there ? This is just the illustration that Wikidata admins mistakes, that they don't have to justify whatsoever, could silently delete perfectly good content without anybody notified ... There should at the very least have a double check before the deletion. The creators should be notified and there should be a proper formal demand. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I restored Craig Silverstein (Q19590854) because English Wikipedia article has been undeleted. --Epìdosis 13:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Our notability policy doesn't speak about whether an item has references. Plenty of items on Wikidata don't have references. That doesn't mean that they should be deleted. The fact that he's described as Google's first employee clearly illustrates that he's notable.
I think the history of deleted items should be default be visible to anybody for at least a month.
As far as privacy and defamation is concerned it's an issue that exists for deleted and undeleted items the same way. Those issues can still be hidden from the item's history.
I don't think not displaying the latest labels and description for deleted items makes sense. ChristianKl (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
From our policy: « An item is acceptable if it refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references » A description in an item isn't a "serious and publicly available references". --ValterVB (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If you can find sources with Google than the item is an item that **can** be described with "serious and publicly available references". The standard isn't that the item **is** described with "serious and publicly available references". Even without googling it should be obvious that are "serious and publicly available references" about who the first employee in Google happens to be. ChristianKl (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Starting from the end: who said that the item is about the first employes? In item I find nothing about this. For the part "If you can..." Where is write that admin must search and add source that user don't want add?. The item is judged to the state that is, not for what will be or what could be --ValterVB (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
As you yourself note above: "Description (en): Google's first employee ". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to note that this discussion pretty much means that we stop deletions. Every Wikidata item, with the exception of obvious vandalism, has external references which in principle could be found. In particular, everything which has been on Wikipedia long enough to make it to Wikidata and then get deleted (ValterVB, me and some other admins are working through the lists of deleted items) can be referenced. IMO, the requirement that external references must be searched before deletion, clearly dilutes the spirit of the notability requirement, and states that whatever made it to Wikidata can not be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If I write a novel and put items for all characters of my novel into Wikidata as I go about my writing process, the creation of those characters is original content for which no external references exist. I don't think that's content that belongs on Wikidata and that the notability guideline as it stands defines that the content doesn't belong on Wikidata.
As far as "spirit" goes the purpose of Wikipedia is "to compile the sum of all human knowledge". Information about how happens to be the first employee in Google clearly fit into that purpose and I don't see a reason to have policies to exclude it. Wikipedia's notability guideline exist because otherwise a lot of false information would enter Wikipedia. Given Wikidata ability to limit statement to structured claims there's less problematic content entered and we can be looser.
To use a more timely example of items that I don't consider notable take Facebook groups with 16 users. That group is likely not described outside of Facebook by serious sources and thus it's not good to store data about it on Wikidata but if the H+ Wiki wants to store the data it's better they host their own database. (see the request above) ChristianKl (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, we are not talking about items which individuals put on Wikidata about themselves. We are tlking about the items which were created on Wikipedia, survived there for some time to be transferred to Wikidata by bots (typically a week), and then deleted on Wikipedia. In particular, this article was deleted on Wikipedia for not being notable (it was later reinstated, which is a dofferent issue). Then, if we decide it is notable, or even "obviously notable" because it has some google hits, we just open a backdoor to Wikidata for non-notable content.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a culture that values defending against the creation of certain articles that aren't notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy. I think that policy makes sense for Wikipedia. Wikidata on the other hand doesn't benefit from having the same notability policy but benefits from being looser in it's notability.
If a bot creates an article about a person named "John Doe" without any statements it's not clear to which John Doe the item refers as there are multiple people named John Doe. As such I wouldn't say it's an item about a specific person.
In most cases I don't think it's useful for Wikidata to delete items with statements that clearly specify which person is meant when the Wikipedia article is deleted. What harm do you think would be caused by not deleting items like this? ChristianKl (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Let me put it like this: In the past, the consensus certainly was that the possibility to identify an item was insufficient to keep in at Wikidata. Even a identifier coming from a database everyone can edit such as IMDB was no sufficient. The consensus cold have been changed, but IMO this should be discussed and established. If the consensus has changed since 2012 we need a new workflow for admins. Currently, my workflow wen I decide whether an item needs to be deleted does not include internet search or, indeed, checking external sources. If it were, I would have time to check may be one or two deletion candidates per day rather than 10-15. Note that I am currently one of the five most active admins here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
For the characters of the novel do you know the third rule of the notability? You can use characters (P674) in the novel and no one will delete item about characters. In wikidata we have notability policy very "light" but Wikidata don't collect fact about all. --ValterVB (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That would need the novel to be published. If it's unpublished it wouldn't work. ChristianKl (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's unpublished but is notable for wikidata, you can use it, where is the problem? --ValterVB (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If it's unpublished and there are no references for it, it might not be notable. In addition I don't think that every link between two items illustrates a "structural need" in particular I don't think characters (P674) illustrates a structural need. It might be worthwhile to have a more specific policy on what a structural need happens to be. ChristianKl (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem it that deletion process is simply too easy. That has rationale it times, when we had lot of deletion requests because of merging. I think we must consider to develop better deletion policy and process comparable with those on local wikis - separate speedy ("non-controversial") and normal deletions, set-up rules for normal deletions (minimal time for open request, obligation to notify item creator, etc.).--Jklamo (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We could try, but my feeling is that we have too many items to be deleted and too small community to avoid massive backlogs.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think is possible there are too much item to start discussion for each item Here you can find a list of lists with item candidates to the deletion (not complete, they are the ones I use), we are talking about thousands or tens of thousands of items . If the community does not trust in its administrators I think that we have a problem, naturally errors are always possible. --ValterVB (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Like you said, mistakes are always possible. You may not realize this because you're an admin and you can see deleted stuffs but there is few more annoying stuffs that seeing an item in your watchlist has been deleted and you have no more information about this. Of course you ask yourself if it's a mistake. If for no other reason, it's a politeness matter to inform the involved parties of what's going on. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
If thousands of items get deleted in an automated fashion I don't trust that no mistakes are made and it would be useful to have a process to spot mistakes. If someone has an item on their watchlist and they see it getting deleted they should have a recourse that allows them to see that the deletion is made and contest it. ChristianKl (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No one said that we delete item automatically, I check every item before the deletion: source, identifiers, history (to check if the page on wiki was really deleted) and What links here. --ValterVB (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
But you don't look for sources - not even a cursory Google search - and don't notify the creator if the item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I don't search source, already said: « Where is write that admin must search and add source that user don't want add?. The item is judged to the state that is, not for what will be or what could be  ». --ValterVB (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It is written that an item may be deleted when "The item does not meet notability requirements". It is also written that an item meets our notability criteria if it "can be described using serious and publicly available references". If you do not look for such references, and you do not ask the item's creator or the community at large if they have any, then you cannot know that the item meets that criterion for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
There are certainly some admins whose actions have shown that trust in them would be misplaced; but even the majority to whom that does not apply, which includes you, are not infallible. In any case, admins should be implementing the consensus of the community, not making unilateral decsions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific Articles

Hi! Recently I've created three itens about scientific articles (Q27314892, Q27333160, Q27315881) linked to a certain author (Q9697128). All the articles are deposited in arXiv. Since I hardly can find anything about it, I would like to know if there is any:

  • WikiProject that would be dedicated to the import of scientific articles' data;
  • tool to automatise that import;
  • rule or role model for what structure those itens must have.

edit: I would also to ask on your opinion on translation of the titles. Should they be translated into other languages, be kept in English or should I do nothing at all about them?

Thanks for your answers in advance and sorry for the inconvenience. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen, James Hare (NIOSH):, though I don't think they've imported articles specifically from arXiV. Mahir256 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sarilho1, James Hare (NIOSH), Mahir256: There is Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData, which has a data model for scholarly articles, but the focus of activities so far was on journal articles, for which we have some tools. The dataset that I am working on does have arXiv identifiers, though, which may be a good starting point for you to explore. There is no policy re translation yet, and I have seen both approaches. For non-English articles, a translation to English is often available for the title, whereas English-language articles rarely have that, so their English title is usually used for the other Wikidata languages as well. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you both for the help. I will look into it. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Exetrnal ID proposal

More eyes are needed on Wikidata:Property proposal/Supermodels.nl. Specifically, is it acceptable to have a property for an identifier derived from a "private/commercial" website? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Poland properties template (translations needed)

I have just created {{Poland properties}}. Please can someone add Polish translations of the template's labels? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Template help needed

Please see Wikidata talk:Database reports/Humans with missing claims#Talk page template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

How to specify the target of a diplomatic mission when the target is not the country it is in?

Wikiproject diplomatic relations tells us to fill for Embassy of Algeria, Kyiv (Q154663) the properties operator (P137) Algeria (Q262) and country (P17) Ukraine (Q212).

This is perfect in most cases, but it does not work when the diplomatic target is an organization:

How should we indicate the diplomatic targets in the cases above? Syced (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Use valid in place (P3005), applies to part (P518) or applies to jurisdiction (P1001)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Andy, thanks for the feedback! Can the UN/EU/NATO really be considered a place, or a part, or a territorial jurisdiction? To help me understand better, would you mind writing the applies to part (P518) statement for the Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations (Q1155320) example? Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

German label of Q27276042

Additional views on the German label of Elnaz Golrokh (Q27276042), an Iranian woman, are needed

User:Kopiersperre insists that it must be "Elnaz Golroch"; claiming in an edit summary that de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Arabisch#Persische Transkription "is authoritative". I do not believe that a German Wikipedia page has authority here.

Furthermore the spelling "Elnaz Golrokh" is used by the subject herself, for example as her Twitter and Instagram user names, and by every .de domain page found by Google.

Once again, this is obviously an issue with wider implications than the single example discussed here; please address these wider issues in your replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, what the web says. Using one transliteration system is the only way to ensure uniformity for the labels. If Andy gets through with this he has enforced English language imperialism against a smaller language.--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The spelling "Elnaz Golrokh" is used by the subject herself, so any imperialism here is not mine. Your comment is extremely offensive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
So we are applying en:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic to all languages? Why? --Succu (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Who is relying on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Some projects have their own transliteration system, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic (Q15868552) --Succu (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Who is relying on that in this case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Elnaz Golrokh is an impossible combination in German, it should be Golroch.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The spelling "Elnaz Golrokh" is used by the subject herself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
It is absolutely irrelevant. Nobody cares. You will be in Russian Энди Маббетт, even if you decide to spell yourself say Анди Маббет and start suing everybody who disagrees. Internal rules of the language are internal rules of the language.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely irrelevant what an Iraninan woman decides to call herself; we know better then she does what her name is? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ever tried to find out how your name is written in Latvian?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This is a discussion about how we write a name in German. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid you just do not get what almost everybody here tries to explain you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I "get it" very well, thank you. I just don't happen to agree with arguments based on false premises. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Support for Kopiersperre’s position, although I wouldn’t see this dewiki page as “authoritative”. However, it reproduces how Arabic Persian -> German transcriptions are typically being conducted, and the result “Golroch” is indeed something one can read and spell in German language (unlike “Golrokh”). Please mind that transcription transforms into different languages with the aim to produce something which sounds somewhat similar, and it is not a transformation into another script. That’s why labels are available for languages, not for scripts. Btw. the same issue applies to many cyrillic names (etc): cyrillic “х” is transcripted into “ch” in German and to “kh” in English. You can put the English transcription as an alias, however. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
What does Arabic have to do with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I missed that Golrokh is apparently from Iran and was confused by the fact that Persian name conventions are part of mentioned pages titled “Arabic” (or similar). I replaced “Arabic” by “Persian”. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I am tempted to agree with those who aren't Andy Mabbett on this issue, though I believe the spelling which he suggests should be an alias in every language written in a Latin script because of its near-ubiquity. If people like Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Q991) and Muammar Gaddafi (Q19878) are allowed to have different transcriptions in each language owing to having a name originally in a non-Latin script, this person should too. Mahir256 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Duden says that family names in German are not subject to the normal orthographic rules. German media uses the name Elnaz Golrokh for her and nobody knows her under the name Elnaz Golroch. Newspapers who supposedly have editors who know how the German language works don't call her Elnaz Golroch. I think the primary German label should be the name under which she's known in Germany and that happens to be Elnaz Golrokh. ChristianKl (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This is why we have "also known as" options. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
No, we absolutely do not have "also known as" options so that we can ignore a woman's decision as to what her own name is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
German naming law considers official passports to be more important when it consider the name of a person than what the person themselves chooses but in this case there's no passport saying they are named Elnaz Golroch. ChristianKl (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
"Also known as" contains the word "also". The woman isn't known under the name Elnaz Golroch. Wikidata or Wikipedia aren't supposed to be primary sources for how a person is named. Their purpose is rather to document reality and the authoritative sources German sources name the person Elnaz Golrokh. ChristianKl (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite apart from the name of this individual, Google finds "about 2,630 results for "Golrokh site:.de and only 39 for Golroch site:.de. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Were you doing this Google searches before or after you added the label? In general, it's definitely wrong to copy English transliteration from Cyrillic or Arabic names to German! In the case of Golrokh you may have been lucky because all medias are copying her name from the social media channels, but you were doing the same edits also on Andrey Snezhko (Q4425493). For Sneschko site:.de 93 results, for Snezjko site:.de 0 results. Kopiersperre fixed the German label but who takes care of the other 70 labels? --Pasleim (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with "Elnaz Golroch" as the German label and with "Elnaz Golrokh" as an alias (or "also known as") for languages using Latin-based scripts. It does not make sense to do it the other way round. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the "o" letters in "Golrokh" could well be spelled "u" (at least in German), judging from the Farsi "الناز گلرخ". --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This shouldn't be about the transliteration system used, if the person used has effectively taken a (romanised) name, presumably using one transliteration system. If people want to include the values from different transliteration systems they can be added as qualifiers to the native name. It also shouldn't be about whether a letter combination is "impossible" in a given language. I believe that the "ött" letter combination is "impossible" in English, but I wouldn't dream changing the English label (or alias) of Niels Böttcher (Q1988963) to Bertcher, Butcher, or Burtcher. It is true that well-known people become known by different transliterations into different languages, but to pre-empt this by labelling or aliasing a name before this as happened smacks of "original research". ChristianKl's research seems to show that Elnaz Golrokh is used by the german media, and there are no sources for Elnaz Golroch. Wikidata should reflect the world as it is described by reliable sources, not the way we would like it to be... Robevans123 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Quite. Thank you for making the point much more eloquently than I did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Help:Label says 'the most common name the item would be known by', not the most correct one. We say Czech Republic, not Czechia. If modern reference books prefer a certain spelling widely, or, in case the item is not yet included widely in reference books, if current media is using a certain spelling, this seems to indicate that this is the most common name for the item. I think what a person calls themselves or what the orthographic descriptive rules of a language would prescribe should be relegated to aliases and appropriate properties. Whereas I like the politeness of adhering to the person's own choice, in the end we should strive for being most considerate of our readers, directly and indirectly. --Denny (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the normal mode for addition of new humans & links to en.wikipedia biography articles

All the best questions, such as this, sound stupid. Other than users manually (or manually via a gadget) adding links from wikidata to en.wikipedia biography articles, and other than users manually (or via a manually invoked gadget) adding new instances of humans to wikidata as a concommitent of adding a new wikipedia biography article ... how are new human instances and new links to en.wikipedia added to wikidata? Do we have one or more bots doing this? (I ask because the en.wikipedia project Women in Red is using a wikidata-based count to determine how many more women articles are added each month, and I've yet to understand whether we have a dependency on editors knowing that in addition to their work on an article, a wikidata records is required.) I hope that all makes some sort of sense; thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

the wikidata record is created automatically if the en.wikipedia article is linked to an article in another language wikipedia - via the "Add links" link in the left navigation bar. Other than that, yes there are bots running that may do this but to be safe it may be best to create the record yourself (or first check if the wikidata record already exists - there may be articles about this person in other languages already). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Confusing/wrong interwikis

I was looking the interwiki at en:Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors (a) which listed an interwiki to ms.wiki of different topic ms:Wikipedia:Melindungi privasi kanak-kanak (b) which is identical to en:Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy (c). Looking at their wikidata, Q13575670 have (a), but doesn't have (b), while Q13417598 correctly have both (b) and (c). My question is then why (a) links to (b)? I don't see any recent edits on both Q13575670 and Q13417598 either. Bennylin (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Old-style interwiki's still exists on some places and should be removed because it creates situations like these. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ranking order

Wikidata:Property proposal/rules for classification.

Example by @Thryduulf:: "if person A has 10 points and person B 20 points, which one wins depends on the sorting order - if they points for wins then person B wins, but if they are penalty points then person A wins."

The question is how can we have a property to show that a rule works increasing or decreasing. Sometimes the bigger amount is first, sometimes the bigger amount is last. Xaris333 (talk) 09:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

WDQ / SPARQL: Beginner's question

Would anybody be so kind as to help me with a query? I have no experience with them and don't know SPARQL (yet), but I'd like to learn.

What I'm trying to do is get all Wikidata items that have Teuchos ID (P2018) with a string starting with "P-", then add described by source (P1343)Philologisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon (Q27357514) to all of them.

How do you translate this into a query? Jonathan Groß (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata:Request a query is a better place to ask this question. --Pasleim (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I hope the described by source (P1343) would contain specific qualifiers, though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pasleim: Thank you for the hint. @Sjoerddebruin: They shall indeed. Jonathan Groß (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Two or one villages?

I first though there was some conflation, and I just need to move a few interwiki links - but now, after looking deeper, I am even more confused, and before I forget it I wanted to raise it here: are Vranduk (Q15924777) and Vranduk (Q1560118) one or two villages? --Denny (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Given that the French Wikipedia version has two entries for Vranduk with one being located in Doboj and the other in Zenica it seems like it should be two items. ChristianKl (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought so too, but then it seems that Doboj and Zenica are bordering each other, that they are both in the Zenica-Doboj Canton (Q18253), and that the articles all claim that Vranduk lies on the way from Doboj to Zenica. I am still not completely convinced they are two villages. --Denny (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Weird. OSM also has two villages of that name, one in Doboj, one in Zenica. But the one in Doboj, I can't confirm its existence on a satellite map. I am getting curious enough to put some time aside to figure out what's going on, but if anyone else wants to make a stab... --Denny (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Google Maps seem to consider there to be two different villages. The one in Doboj seems to be a handful of houses and a lot of forest but Google still considers it to be a village. ChristianKl (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I guess I should follow Google Maps ;) The census of the Republic and the Federation both list a Vranduk with very different population numbers, one in Zenica (Federation) and one in Doboj (Republic), and the municipalities which they are listed in are very geographically distinct, so yeah, I assume both exist. Thanks for the sanity check! --Denny (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How to get the Wikidata ID from an article

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T74815

Well. I can't figure this. And I can't find it. How can I get the Wikidata ID of an article in order to use it in templates? For example, if I want to know that Belgium is Q31 automatically... what would be the query/code/way? Totally stuck with this. -Theklan (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not possible at the moment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow! I was getting mad! But this is strange, because in the left column of Wikipedia we can find a link to Wikidata of each article! -Theklan (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

In Greek wiki there is a Preference Gadget for showing the wikidata id and label under the title of the article. Xaris333 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Within an article this is not a problem to my knowledge. Module:Wikidata (Q12069631) is available in many projects and has this functionality via {{#invoke:Wikidata|pageId}}. This can be used in a template to determine the Wikidata-ID of the page which transcludes this template (i.e. on Belgium you’d get "Q31"). However, things are different on an arbitrary page which is not Belgium, on which one wants to have the Wikidata-ID of Belgium… right? —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, MisterSynergy is right. On article about Belgium you can get only "Q31" via templates/modules. With javascript there isn't such problem, but that won't help in this case, I suppose. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #231

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

Petscan help

Hello. I want, maybe with PetScan [11]

1) Using the wikidata items of the articles of a specific category, for example en:Category:Cypriot First Division seasons

2) Find which of those items are not using, for example, followed by (P156).

Xaris333 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Use wiki: Wikidata
2) (None) "P156" in "Uses items/props". Of course, you can use SPARQL, but I personally use "Uses items/props" for simple cases. --Edgars2007 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Developer Summit

Hello folks,

The Wikimedia Developer Summit will take place in San Francisco on January 9-11, 2017. All Wikimedia technical contributors, third party developers, and users of MediaWiki and the Wikimedia APIs are welcomed.

If you're interested, please not that the deadline to request travel sponsorship is Monday, October 24th. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong nationalities

I'm removing some 350 country of citizenship (P27)Italy (Q38) from people who died before 1861, when the modern Italian state was created; at the end of July I did it for thousands of items. I've noticed that most of these new country of citizenship (P27)Italy (Q38) have been added either through Wikidata Game (this one, another one ...) or through import from Italian Wikipedia. Would it be possible to reduce new wrong statements at least from these two sources? Thank you, --Epìdosis 19:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I've requested a edit filter for the Dutch situation a while ago. Maybe you can request one on Wikidata talk:Abuse filter. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
@Epìdosis: Do you have a list with possible citizenship according to the location and the date for Italy ? Nature abhors a vacuum. Snipre (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Just removing them isn't the right approach. Replace it with the more precise country. Otherwise you'll just get into an endless loop. Multichill (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The concepts of nationality and citizenship are not as old as mankind. If there are no suitable predecessors of modern Italy, it might be worth to consider adding no value-claims for country of citizenship (P27). It would then be kind of “occupied” and probably no longer be offered for data import by these tools. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It is the same situation as in Germany, see File:Italy 1843.svg. The second example of Cento seems to be near Ferrara which is at that map part of the Papal States. I don´t think such information should be added by this tool. --Molarus 21:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The most complete list of Italian historic state is it:Antichi Stati italiani: as you can see, the tables are really complex, so I can't manually correct hundreds of items. I replaced Italy (Q38) with Kingdom of Italy (Q172579) for those who died between 1861 and 1946, but for those who lived before 1861 I don't have a definite solution at the moment. --Epìdosis 21:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
So the best is to replace wrong value by "some value" until a correct data can be provided with source and I hope that the tool is not considering that value as an empty value. The solution of "no value" is not the best one: even if the definition of citizenship was not known before the XIX century, special rights and duties similar to the ones related to citizenship existed in former European states (taxes, right to wear weapons or to be enrolled in the army, right to be elected in some councils,...). In some cases we can find data which can be considered as citizenship, and in that cases we should be able to add this information. The main problem is always sources. Snipre (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We also have to think about infoboxes using those statements and how module wikidata response to a value "some value". I do not know, since I have no experience with that module. By the way, most people born in the Kingdom of Italy were citizen of Italy a few years later. Therefore, being 100% right, both nationalities plus qualifier should be in the item. Which might make problems for the Wikidata module. At least the cycling module has a lot of special lua code to show the right flag for cycling races, if the data about nationality is complete and formatted right. In my view, there are only two cases regarding nationality in Wikidata: The easy cases and the false cases. Maybe Italy as nationality is not that bad after all. I mean, it is obvious that it is wrong for people living before 1861, but everyone knows that. --Molarus 11:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
There are also more modern cases, e.g. is possible for someone to have been a national of Kingdom of Yugoslavia (Q191077), Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Q83286), Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Q838261), Serbia and Montenegro (Q37024) and Serbia (Q403) at various times in their life without having moved. It is not correct to simply say they have been a citizen of Serbia (Q403) their whole life, even if that makes it simple. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Q38 is just "Italy". If someone wants to use an identifier with more specific meanings, such as the current Republic of Italy or the Kingdom of Italy in 1861 or 1870 (or 476 or 493 or 568 or 800 or 1805 or others), or for some mix thereof, they should create a separate item. Nemo 12:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  Comment This is a significant matter and applies to MANY cases that need a resolution. United Kingdom / United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland / Kingdom of Great Britain / Kingdom of Scotland; add the complexity of the Commonwealth nations being British subjects prior to 1949, the Irish Republic, etc. There is a significant matter to resolve and it needs more than removals of incorrect, and piecemeal fixing. It needs discussion, and direction, exception reports to be done properly  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

German states prior to WW1, those nations that didn't have citizenship until they had a semblance of national government. So many examples  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This may be less important case, but to collect them in one place... For example, Rūdolfs Blaumanis (Q1082044) - a real Latvian. Was dead before Latvia was independent, so I have to put country of citizenship (P27)=Russian Empire (Q34266) and I can't put country of citizenship (P27)=Latvia (Q211). That means, that if I query for Latvian guys and girls, Rūdolfs Blaumanis (Q1082044) will be excluded... Not good. OK, I could get him via other properties: languages spoken, written or signed (P1412), but that would find also many false positives, name in native language (P1559), but hmm.. there are some cases, when this won't work. And if somebody that isn't so knowledgable about this makes query, he will be disappointed. If some bot goes and adds label from P27 and P106 and converts Russian Empire to Russia - also not good, actually - very bad. --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Edgars2007 Considered ethnic group (P172)? --Njardarlogar (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
At en:WP they write born in Ergli, Russian empire, now Latvia and died in Punkaharju, Russian empire, now Finland. To keep it simple, we could create a new property to tell the current country where the item is located.(P17: Russian Empire, Pnew: Latvia) By the way, take old cities, for example Roman cities. At the moment we say those cities, gone 2000 years ago, have a P17 with Italy, German or France as value. Actually it is P17 and roman Empire are value. A new property would help a lot. Or we turn things around and say that P17 tells the current country and Pnew the situation at an earlier time. Therefore Pnew for Rūdolfs Blaumanis would be Russion empire and had he lived before 1721, Pnew would be Swedish Empire. This way we do not have to change a lot. --Molarus 09:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Njardarlogar, yes, I have looked at that item, but it seems one of those sensitive properties. Molarus, I hope you don't suggest chenaging place of birth from city to country, aren't you? :) But I have seen (probably from ruwiki bot imports), that item has claim: "place of birth (P19): city" with qualifiers - located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and country (P17) with the country, that existed at that time. Don't think placing both country-at-the-time and current country is needed. You can get current country from SPARQL queries. And anyway, this doesn't resolve my usecase about querying Latvians - already mentioned why in previos post. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
This list says that Germany is the worst case with 22401 people having a wrong nationality on Wikidata. Second is UK with 20042 people and third Spain with 17417 people. Italy has only 8 people with a wrong nationality, Latvia 3. It seems, Spain started to exist 1978, Germany 1871 and the UK 1927. It is the year 1918 for Latvia and 1946 for Italy. At least for Germany I can say it is true. I think there were several hundred countries that make Germany today. No one wants to correct that. The whole list has 84161 people and 1994368 items use P27. --Molarus 20:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I wanna say adding country of citizenship (P27) -> Francoist Spain (Q13474305) to someone born in Spain who died between 1939 and 1978 is pretty ...weird, if not just lame. As weird as adding Weimar Republic (Q41304) or Nazi Germany (Q7318) or "Unified Germany" to a German fella. The other "Spanish countries" would be then... Second Spanish Republic (Q178038)? Spain under the Restoration (Q1044536)?? Those would not be countries, but historical periods. Usually people is happy with Spain (Q29) (whatever that is) 'existing' since 1715 (when Crown of Castile (Q217196) and Crown of Aragon (Q204920) were joined). More nationalistic guys carry Spain back to 1492. Lucky them. "Political regime" is not the same as "country" or "nation". Strakhov (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Fusion problems: Ferrero

I can't fusion en:Ferrero with other languages, for example . Can someone help ? 178.11.10.150 13:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do you want to merge a company and a disambiguation page? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Its not the company side, if you would have a look on english page Ferrero. 178.11.10.150 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no idea how this happened. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
So I guess we are talking about Ferrero (Q21493848) (family name, enwiki sitelink; is in fact a disambiguation page) and Ferrero (Q1407854) (disambiguation page, no enwiki sitelink). However, I’m not sure whether merging is the best idea here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You can't merge beause a disambiguation page is different than a page of persons with the same surname. --ValterVB (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
But as the English article listed more than people sharing the same surname, it was a disambiguation page. So I moved the English sitelink to Ferrero (Q1407854) and Ferrero (Q21493848) (the family name) is without sitelink, which isn't a problem. But we need to keep separate family names and disambiguation pages, so no merging the two! --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No, the english page isn't a disambiguation. In fact you can't found it in en:Special:DisambiguationPages. It's a rational choice, mix surname or name with disambiguation is an error. Just an example to clarify: en:Bacon (name) and en:Bacon (disambiguation) why they are separated? Because are diffrent thing, and we can't mix them. --ValterVB (talk) 06:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Last thing: in en:Category:Surnames is clearly written « However, do not use the template on disambiguation pages that contain a list of people by family name »
As I am the one who is currently disentangling family names and disambiguation pages, I quite know that... Usually when it's a surname page, others uses are under a "See also" section, not an "other" section at the same level that the "persons" one (as if all uses are equal for the article, as if the article is about a disambiguation). But in this case, it's probably easier to correct in on the English Wikipedia so it's more clearly about the family name and the other uses are more a "by the way, that exist to but it's not the subject here". I mostly try not to modify articles on Wikipedias to make them more clean from a Wikidata point of view, but, hey, if in this case you prefer it, not a problem at all, I just don't want family names and disambiguation pages getting mixed. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 06:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Harmonia Amanda: The en page isn't wrong. It's a page about the surname and people that have that surname. It has a specific template that don't add dismabiguation category and don't add __DISAMBIG__ magic word. We can't add it in disambiguation item. --ValterVB (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@ValterVB: well, before my edit, the structure of it was misleading when you stay on Wikidata and only preview the content and not the categories. But it's corrected and I'm using Petscan to find other English pages not linked to the correct item now. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the problem is that “family name” pages at Wikipedias are very similar to disambiguation pages, in fact they are in many cases nothing else than that. Whether or not they carry a disambiguation template to be formally one depends on the habits in that project rather than on the content. The dewiki page de:Ferrero is indeed very similar to the enwiki page, and others are as well. From that perspective, it would be preferable to merge them into one item. On the other hand, however, things are not always that clear, and pages about family names can contain much more information than the example in question—which means merging is a bad idea.
Unfortunately I don’t have an idea how to solve this problem within our project, but there are many experts around here. Quite often I see items which are of mixed disambig/family name character (according to descriptions of different languages, and P31 statements), which is something to be fixed anyway. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Well @MisterSynergy: you are welcome to join me and the other people of the Wikidata:WikiProject Name to disentangle all that. In the last two months, I corrected thousands of family names/disambiguation pages but as you noticed, there is still work to do. Still, family name (P734) went from more than 6300 constraint violations to less than 1600 and it should keep going down in the next days, so, bit by bit, it's getting better. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I saw your efforts and appreciate the outcome! Unfortunately I drown in own worklists, so at the moment the best I can offer is the occasional creation of given name items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: If we merge, wich value must have instance of (P31)? If we use family name (Q101352) we can't add, for ex, the it.wiki page because at the moment it list also the company and in future if something of notable will have the name Ferrero (for example an album (Q482994)) it will be added to the italian disambiguation. IMHO the management of disambiguation on wikidata in these case it isn't too complicated: 1) the page have the magic word for the disambiguation? If yes, it is a disambigugion if no it isn't a disambiguation 2) we can't keep disambiguation page and not disambiguation page in the same item. If there is an error on wiki side we can try to fix the problem there. --ValterVB (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC) ps if you want work on name I suggest also to read Wikidata:WikiProject Disambiguation pages
Well I fully understand the problem, with both possible solutions and their drawbacks. I don’t want to decide which one is more appropriate, I’m just here to give input which I hope is useful…   —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct claims for a cabinet

I'm trying to cleanup the items identifying Danish Cabinets, i.e. instance of (P31)Cabinet of Denmark (Q1503072).

So before I started cleaning them up, the ones that had dates assigned used three different strategies:

  1. start time (P580)/end time (P582) as qualifiers on the instance of (P31)
  2. start time (P580)/end time (P582) as statements directly on the item
  3. inception (P571) as statement on the item directly (should probably be augmented with dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576), but that was not the case)

While I'm halfway done streamlining these according to strategy number 2, I somewhat got in doubt and has been searching far and wide to understand what would be the concensus to follow in this area.

I've sort of given up on the project chat archive and therefore bring the question here :-) --VicVal (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

. #2 as on this looks good.
--- Jura 12:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfathomable confusion

It seems brasse (Q280164) and fathom (Q6502423) are mixed up. The latter seems to focus on the English fathom, while the former gives a more general overview of fathom-related measures of length. But it's quite a mess; the German article on Q280164 is about one specific fathom that several other articles linked to it don't even mention. On the other hand, the en:Fathom article probably should be linked (via WikiData) to es:Braza (unidad). Some help, particularly with the more exotic languages, would be appreciated. Right now some of those articles use old-style interlanguage links as crutches. Huon (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Unrelevant : Metric system is such a blessing ... what a mess. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

[BREAKING] Removal of the wb-status page prop

Hey folks, we plan to drop the wb-status page prop as it's unused as far as we can tell and of questionable value, see T146792. This will affect you if you use the action=query API to retrieve page props from entity pages or if you use the page_props table (on tool labs for example), to retrieve this page property.

Please let us know if and how you use this page prop, so that we can find a solution for your use cases.

In case there are no issues with removing this, we will drop it in December 2016 (or later). - Hoo man (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of Rollback

User:Sjoerddebruin has removed my rollback right, after I used it on my own talk page to remove a post he left there.

Ironically, on that post, he used it to tell me not to use rollback on my own talk page, to remove an abusive post. As far as I am aware, it is perfectly acceptable to use roll back on one's own talk page (its common practice to do so, for example, on en.Wikipedia).

Wikidata:Rollbackers says "Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and test edits" and "occasional exceptions may apply". I contend that one's own talk page is clearly within the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It seems I also accidentally rolled back an edit on Wikidata:Property creators as while I was using my mobile phone; I wasn't aware of doing so and it wasn't my intention to do so; I have self reverted that edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
P.P.S It is possibly relevant that there is a false claim here, in a discussion involving Sjoerddebruin, immediately preceding his removal of my rollback right, that I used rollback when in fact I simply reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
On it.wiki isn't acceptable delete post in talk page. If is diffamatory you can ask an admin to obscure the text, if is an error you can use <s>...</s> --ValterVB (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think even Sjoerddebruin is claiming that a user may not be delete posts on their own talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
"I confirm that my use of rollback will comply with the guideline at Wikidata:Rollbackers", see here. Please note that the rollback rights were removed before in April for the same reason and were added back in June without community consensus. How in the world is it "perfectly acceptable" to rollback someones edits on your talk page? And once again, this is Wikidata. In every discussion you point to practices and guidelines on the English Wikipedia, as they suit your opinion. But this is Wikidata, another project. The discussion here is not related to this, by the way. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
My use of rollback on my own talk page has never before been questioned, much less been the cause of its removal. Nor have I ever seen anyone else's use of rollback on their own talk page be an issue. Perhaps you can provide some links to examples? As noted above, my use of rollback on my own talk page very much was in compliance with the guidelines on this wiki, which allow not only for "occasional exceptions" noted, but "commons sense". You have yet to demonstrate otherwise. Your claims about "every discussion" are transparently false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The simple attitude of Pigsonthewing here shows he is not suited to having rollback. Using a mobile device was no excuse. Also, this belongs at WD:AN...--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The decision about whether rollback may be used by an editor on their own talk page is a matter for the whole community, not just for admins. Do you have any evidence of a precedence that it may not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Reverting a message left on your talk page in good faith with rollback is clearly abuse of the permission. Is it really that hard to just get along with other people? :/ -- Ajraddatz (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Though, granted, it is probably better than leaving this edit summary. --Rschen7754 00:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
"Clearly" in this case meaning "has never previously been an issue; and is common practise on Andy's (other) home project, which also happens to be WMF's largest". That's as clear as mud. I'm perfectly capable of getting along with people who are open to that; I made a point of introducing myself to Sjoerddebruin at Wikimania, and treating him with courtesy and respect. The result has been him repeatedly hassling me on various parts of Wikidata; a matter on which I commented only recently - with evidence - on the admin notice board. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that it was right for Sjoerddebruin to be the one to do it as they were the other party engaged in the concurrent dispute/edit war with Andy, and it was their message that Andy rolled back. I tend to agree that removal was correct, but should have been done by someone who was not involved.
The edit summary is not acceptable at all - firstly it's completely unnecessarily offensive and confrontational, and secondly it's clearly factually inaccurate (whatever the rights and wrongs of doing so, Sjoerddebruin did remove Andy's rollback for the reason cited). Edit summaries should be a (reasonably accurate) summary of the edit made, not commentary on a preceding edit* or other editors. (*except if the edit was made solely to correct a previous edit or edit summary). Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Using rollback to remove good faith messages on your (public) talk page, causes that the sender will be notified that his contribution is reverted. That is unnecessarily offensive, and a clear abuse of the rollback right, even if not strictly forbidden. Rights have been abused by Pigsonthewing before, for editwarring. He clearly does not have sufficient intrinsic etiquette to bear these rights. Sadly. I think Sjoerddebruin was right to remove the rights, although I agree with Thryduulf that it would have been better if he had left this to someone else. Lymantria (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The former is also true of a revert. Are you saying those are prohibited, also? And in what way is asking me "what's your f_cking problem" a "good faith" message? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz asks "Is it really that hard to just get along with other people?" Funny how neither he, nor Sjoerddebruin, nor anyone else seems concerned about the reason why I used rollback on my talk page in the first place: to remove an edit beginning "...what's your f_cking problem?" Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You should stop pointing at other people and have a look in the mirror. This is part of pattern. Why do you continue to exhibit aggressive behaviour towards anyone who opposes you? Why do you keep getting into conflicts with other users? Do you understand that your current behaviour towards other users is problematic and should change? Multichill (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a post on my talk page saying "what's your f_cking problem?" is my fault? Your accusation that I "exhibit aggressive behaviour towards anyone who opposes [me]" is false, and unacceptable. My conscience is clear. How's yours, given that this is not the first time you've tried to falsely smear me like this? Or is your aggressive behaviour somehow acceptable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The post started with „Sorry for getting rude“. You proposed not to misuse this right again, but you did. It's enough. --Succu (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
So anyone can post any abuse they like, if they prefix it "Sorry for getting rude"? I did not "misuse" the right, as explained above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for pointing out the obvious. You just proved my point. I'm quite sure quite a few people here agree with me here, but are scared to speak up here because of the way you tend to respond to criticism. Multichill (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure how reminding you that you failed to provide evidence last time you made false accusations about me somehow proves your point when you do so again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikidata isn't about practicing "an eye for an eye". Even if I agree with you that asking "...what's your f_cking problem?" isn't behavior I would like to see, that doesn't excuse escalating the conflict by removing the edit.
As far as aggressive conversations go, this month I witnessed a conflict of you with Jura about a property and adding of planned usage of it. You called Kopiersperre's comment "Your comment is extremely offensive" in the discussion about the name of Elnaz Golrokh. There's another property that has one support and one oppose vote where I removed the "ready" tag and you simple readded it.
Those are just conflicts that came to my attention and that I can recall from memory. I think you would get better along with other people if you would be less confrontational and then people would also be more likely to grant you rights. Given that you do provide a lot of value to this community, I think it would also be great if you could have more rights. ChristianKl (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
What about the rollback comment Bullshit, ChristianKl? --Succu (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That was not a rollback. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought that Andy's comment "Your comment is extremely offensive" was, under the circumstances, rather restrained since it was in reply to this comment: "If Andy gets through with this he has enforced English language imperialism against a smaller language", which I think was both incorrect and offensive... Robevans123 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
If someone who doesn't speak language X argues that the label of the language should be Y based on cultural ideas of language Z I don't see the problem with given that the name language Z imperialism. German naming conventions don't suggest that a person is an authority on what their name happens to be in the same way that Anglo norms do.
I think it's valid to disagree with the assessment but I don't think complaining about tone moves the discussion towards a resolution and is constructive. ChristianKl (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: You would be absolutely correct if the original argument had been based on the cultural ideas of language Z, but in this particular case it was based on the choice of the person Y and how she chose her own name in a Latin-derived alphabet (which happened to be Z). The references to person Y in language X use the transliteration from language Z (as you demonstrated). If there is any language imperialism it would be if a language tried to promote an unused transliteration over a label that was already in use in that language. As I said elsewhere, Wikidata should reflect how the world is described (preferably with reliable sources), and not what we might like it to be, or what we think it should be.
You may also wish to look at the detailed procedure at Help:Label#Items without pages on Wikimedia sites - Step 2 - which clearly shows that if the Y in question had been based on a page from the German wikipedia, and had been labelled Elnaz Golroch, then that would be the recommended label for the English Wikipedia (unless Elnaz Golrokh was already commonly used in English).
Now, the guidelines mentioned above seem to be specifically aimed at the English label, but I cannot think why they shouldn't be applied equally (symetrically and un-imperialistically) between any of the languages that use a Latin-derived alphabet. So, if the first page is on the French wikipedia, using a French transliteration, then all the other languages should use that transliteration (unless there is a commonly used transliteration for that language). Of course, later in time a different transliteration (from a different language) may start to be used (in which case it can used as the alias in the different language), and perhaps even later, that different transliteration may become the most common use in that different language (at which point the label and the alias can be swapped).
Just to further clarify - I'm from Wales (Q25) and we are the experts on English imperialism - both culturally and linguistically - we've had the most experience of it. We are very good at telling the difference between real and imagined cases.   Robevans123 (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The guidelines you linked don't say that the name of a label of a person should be the name that the person chooses for himself with is the reason that Andy cites in the discussion.
I don't think that cultural disputes between Anglo's make you an expert on what isn't imperialism on non-Anglo's. You are also ruled by common law. In general I think it makes a lot of sense to defer decisions about naming norms to natives of a language if multiple natives are available and for people who aren't natives or who have at least a firm grasp on the language.
Nonnatives making naming norm decisions is the core of what cultural imperialism is about. ChristianKl (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Jura has been trolling me and others for months. At one point, for example, he announced to another editor that he (Jura) was disregarding any comments I made on property proposals: "I had been advised to ignore Pigs' comments as they are frequently irrelevant." I think would get along with people better if they didn't do things like that, nor leave comments like "...what's your f_cking problem?" on my talk page (that was Kopiersperre again, who seems unhappy with me ever since I told him his request to create a property out of process would not happen). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Being aware of your disputes with with Jura, you are not only getting into fights with him. Your behavior in discussions I judge as generally nasty. Either arrogant, or harsh-offensive and hardly ever moving towards a solution. Besides, you are way better in commenting on others than in taking comments. I think mostly your intentions are good, but if you have some sort of dispute or disagree with decisions taken, you forget those good intentions and don't act in line with them. I'm sorry, but I think that is immature, as is all your pointing to others in this discussion. I agree with Multichill that a severe look in the mirror would do you good. Lymantria (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
"[In]sufficient intrinsic etiquette", "nasty", "immature". It is your own mirror which needs attention. Also, the only "others" I have "pointed to" have first been brought up by different people than me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am aware of being a rude and too direct Dutch. My apologies for using unpleasant wordings and perhaps being too direct. I hope you try to understand the message behind it. Lymantria (talk) 07:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about "begin date"

Hi, on Property talk:P580 someone proposed to just remove the constraint that it should be used as a qualifier. I think such a proposition deserves a better visibility so just do this.

Secondly, such a proposal has a potential to have project wide consequences, so we clearly have to find a better solution than just opening a discussion on the talk page where more one half of us may lose and would have something to say ...

Last, I think we may have a problem with "begin date" and "end date" being used outside of properties, de facto, because they are convenient for events for example (we don't have an equivalent generic to events, this clearly is a problem to me) but there unrestricted usage might be harmful. For example what made me dig the question is a usage of "end date" for a tax, which seems to me cleary incorrect because the end date of a tax is something that deserves to be way more defined (abrogation of the law date ? last time it was payed by someone ?) and a tax is not an event per se ...

Also I had the surprise that the english description of "end date" was changed without anybody noticing indicates the time an item ceases to exist, that the documentation of the property was then inconsistent - it's supposed to be a qualifier - what about dissolution date ? ... this is a mess !

@Ash Crow, Thryduulf, Thadguidry: author  TomT0m / talk page 14:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The only way to keep the constraint is to focus on the use of significant event (P793). But this implies to create a predefined set of events of each item class. This requires more collaborative work and this is against the general trend of individual work usually found in WD. Snipre (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m To fix the mess, then I would suggest that someone create a historical use property, to help with something like my cuneiform Q401 example in Property talk:P580 . That proposed new property could be something like "period of active use". I am glad that you agree with me in that Property talk:P580 that the cuneiform example is not an event but an example of a historical writing system that had an "period of active use" with qualifiers of "start time" and "end time". But this should not be constrained against Event, but I would say a Temporal Entity instead the kind I created and the kind that is talked about in papers and at cntro.org. Go ahead and get the ball rolling on that proposed property please and I'll support it. Incidentally, here's the list of all the time properties, just in case I missed something that could be reused:https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Ftopic%20%3Flabel%20%28LANG%28%3Flabel%29%20AS%20%3Flang%29%0AWHERE%0A%7B%0A%20%20%3Ftopic%20wdt%3AP31%20wd%3AQ18636219%3B%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20rdfs%3Alabel%20%3Flabel.%0A%20%20FILTER%28LANG%28%3Flabel%29%20%3D%20%22en%22%29.%0A%7DThadguidry (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Empty or none

Hello. Using some properties I think that maybe we should use an empty data (I apologize if we already have). For example, sponsor (P859). If an item has not this property it may means that we don't know the sponsor or just maybe noone add this information yet. But if we know that there was no sponsor how can we give that information? Xaris333 (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If you know that there was no sponsor, then set sponsor (P859) to no value (assuming that it's reasonable that it might have a sponsor). If you know there was a sponsor but not who it was, or don't know if there was or not (and it's reasonable that it might have one) then set it to unknown value). Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thryduulf is right. Relevant help section: Help:Statements#Unknown or no values. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Scientific articles, published in part

At Wikidata:Forum (German equivalent of WD:PC) a question came up how to use published in (P1433) in an item about a scientific article which was published in two parts (both parts appeared in the same journal, same volume, but subsequent issues). The item in question is Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093). Please give input at Property talk:P1433#multi-part article to make this information permanently available for P1433 users. Thanks! —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

New wikiproject Chess

In case you would like to participate - WikiProject Chess has been created. --Wesalius (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability

Hello, I've seen a lot of elements about paintings without articles. Now I'm doing complete work about one russian painter on wikimedia (articles on wikipedia, uploading texts on wikisourse and paintings and drawings to commons). For each painting I create it's own element and put a link on it to wikipedia list-article about artist's paintings and to artwork template on commons. And now I've just read rules, that such elements couldn't be on wikidata, so all these elements will be deleted and I should stop creating them? Look for example here: Q27493192, c:File:Writing_Desk_(Rozanova,_1914).jpg, w:ru:Участник:Stolbovsky/Список работ Ольги Розановой. --Stolbovsky (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Stolbovsky: I would think any artwork that is for example listed in a catalog or otherwise known to the world should qualify as notable according to WD:N criterion 2 - "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." What "rules" were you reading that suggested otherwise? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Which rules, @Stolbovsky:? Wikidata:Notability says in its point 2 that an item is notable if It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references.. By this, I'd consider the artworks of a notable artist to be notable & hence would welcome such items. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry guys, someone in ruwiki told me wrong thing, and then I've read the wrong way phrase if it meets at least one of the criteria below. I've read it as: if it meets ALL the criteria below. For a minute I was quite dissapointed. --Stolbovsky (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
You may also want to check Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings--Ymblanter (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Petscan Widar advice, please

I have a couple of Petscan reports. The first, #562208, looks for wikidata items with no corresponding en.wikipedia article, and offers me the opportunity to use (as I understand it) Widar to populate wikidata - e.g. the first three edits on "Phi Un-hui"

The second #565303 finds 13 philatelists with wikidata items. Petscan does not seem to be offering a Widar option.

1. Can I / how can I use Petscan to add philatelist (Q1475726) to the wikidata records for these 13 people as a occupation (P106) (beyond the syntax, if Widar was available, of P106:Q1475726)?

2. Supposing a subset of the 13 have philatelist (Q1475726) as a occupation (P106) value already ... if I have not included a check for this in Petscan, and there is a Widar addition method, would the method cause a second instance of philatelist (Q1475726) to be appended as a occupation (P106) value in the wikidata record?

thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

1) Select "Wikidata" as "Use wiki" in "Other sources" tab.
2) It shouldn't. Anyway, it's not a big issue, there is a bot, who cleans-up dublicate statements. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Edgars2007, worked, appeciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

QuickStatements not supporting area (P2046)?

I cannot get to use QuickStatements to add area (P2046) with decimal numbers as well as the unit. Is there a format to use? This format makes an error:

Q131870 P2046 +289.20

The area for item Q131870, for example, does not save as 289.20, even whether +289.20 or "289.20" is used. Plus adding the unit "square kilometre" beside it still displays the error.

Sanglahi86 (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sanglahi86: currently it's not possible to add this information via QuickStatements. --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. Is there an alternative tool that could be used to add this information in several items in batch? Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The easiest is to ask it at WD:BOTREQ. --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Force-directed graph template announcement

Based on Wikidata Graph Builder ideas and Graph Extension, I've constructed a new template {{Force-directed graph}} for building graphs using SPARQL queries. Queries should be compatible with #defaultView:Graph queries in WQS and Wikidata Graph Builder. I've also constructed 2 helper templates for most common scenarios (building taxon trees, family trees, subclasses/superclasses trees, administrative units tree, etc.).

{{Forward graph|Q515}} {{Reverse graph|Q515}}

--Lockal (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ideally two things need to be changed in this template:
  1. Click handler for text (opening the relevant items is possible by doubleclicking the nodes, which is not intuitive)
  2. Handle static image renderer either by setting "interactive": false just for Graphoid or at least by overlapping the graph with white rectangle with "Enable the interactivity to see the graph". Probably not possible with current codebase.
--Lockal (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice. # Language can't be changed. --AVRS (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Added user language to query, now graphs are localized. --Lockal (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Could it use longer lines when given more space? The width and height seem to only affect the field size and where the center is. --AVRS (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, pretty cool. Something to say however : it's fun to see a graph stabilizing, I could do this a lot, but in a real life application we don't really want to see this. Could it be possible to compute something not to bad "off-the-record" and show it only then ? (Except if explicitly asked for of course) Interactivity is very useful however of course later on to try something else. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Good point. This could also lead to similar looking graphs for all users at all times. At the moment it equilibrates to a completely different arrangement each time I load the data, which makes it a little complicated to get used to the graph structure and difficult to discuss with other users. (Apart from that: it’s really cool to have this functionality available onwiki!) —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I've added mode parameter for rendering static images (nodes are not clickable), semi-interactive (default mode: nodes are doubleclickable and draggable without animation) and interactive (nodes are doubleclickable and draggable with animation). However node positions converge to different values on each new recalculation. Feature request in Vega was closed, because d3 does not support this, however there are ideas on stackoverflow. I'll experiment with them. --Lockal (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge or not

Should Electra (Q1325803) and Elektra (Q217340) be merged or not? I can't think of any solid reasons to support either point of view. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course not. It's not even possible to merge those pages. --Stryn (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
But WHY not? I'm looking for a reason to merge or not, not simply the fact that the two pages are a mess to be cleaned up. Consider: Why are these items separate? What is the difference between them? I can come up with no good answer to that question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
And why yes? Disambiguation items on WD are word-based, not meaning-based. So there is no mess in having two items in this case, the only a bit tricky question is the item for non-latin based scripts. --Jklamo (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It's not just a question of non-Latin. Where would French Électre go? Czech Élektra? Are disambiguation pages to share a common data item only if they have the same written form? And what if the disambiguation pages themselves include forms in addition to the one used for the title? The English Wikipedia disambiguation page includes forms spelled both Electra and Elektra.--EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
If you want Interwiki between Electra and Elektra and Électre and Élektra you can do that by the help of templates on Wikipedia like Template:Interwiki extra (Q21286810) The main purpose of Wikidata is not to provide non-stringent connections. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But it isn't just Wikipedia. There is also the English Wikisource and the Polish Wikisource, and (potentially) every Wikisource project too. Are you suggesting that, for these two data items, we have to "solve" the problem by replicating that template to every Wikipedia and Wikisource in every language and populate them with values on each and every MW project? Instead of simply working out the problem here with two data items?
And this still doesn't answer my original question: Why is this set up with this particular two data items? Why not just one? Why not more? I want to know what Wikidata is trying to do with these disambiguation data items, not what it's not doing. Under what conditions are two disambiguation pages added to the same data item? Because I don't see any rationale, much less a criterion, being given by anyone yet. The implication is that it's by precise spelling of the page title, but that isn't what's going on here, since we have more than two page titles. And further, the content of the pages does not match the page titles: some of the pages with one form of page title include information that would be expected for the other page title. But more often, there have a mix because the content was sorted in the local languages by pronunciation and near-spelling, and not by spelling or written form. So to impose an external assumption that the pages are strictly about word form would be to miss the point entirely. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
For disambiguation item Electra is different from Elektra, in fact de.wikik has two elements for this. You can read mor about disambiuguation in our Wikiproject --ValterVB (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit confliect) Yes, de has two disambiguation pages, one for Electra and one for Elektra, but the English Wikipedia has a single page that covers both spellings. Your project doesn't address this issue or the other issues I raised. For example, the project allows for transcription, but doesn't solve the question of whether אלקטרה should go with Electra or with Elektra. Either transcription is possible depending upon the target language. So the only reason Polish Elektra is not placed with English Electra is that in Polish the letter "c" doesn't make the right sound. And in any event, doesn't this promote western European bias, since Electra and Electra are both transcriptions of the same Greek word Ηλέκτρα? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Bonny and Clide strikes back. A problem for WD:XLINK. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You also have to be aware of that Wikisource have (at least) two kinds of disambiguation-pages. If there is disambiguation page only devoted to "Electra, a play by Euripides" (different versions of that text) it should be linked to the item about that work, not to any other disambiguation-page. The exception to that is if there is more than one Wikisource-project that have such a disambiguation-page. The Bible can for example be found in more than one version in many WS-projects. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I am aware of this difference, but the English Wikisource disambiguation page I talking about is for different works with the title "Electra", not for the play by Euripides. There is a play by that title by Euripides, one by Sophocles, as well as many articles with that title, and so we have a disambiguation page. You assumed incorrectly what I meant without looking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It would seem that it is because that is the rule based on the rule "that they exist in that form". WD lists them as they are notable at the respective wikis, and that is enough, it does not need to discriminate against them in that regard. Similarly to how the wikisources do have their varieties of disambiguation pages for standard disambig, version disambig, and translation disambig, each of those would appear here (so 3 disambig pages) even though at WP they may just be the one encyclopaedic page, or one disambiguation page. For enWS we would link to the corresponding spelling here. Noting that for a versions page, I would normally link that to the WD item about the work, as they do align. It is still messy with WSes with their editions, and the WPs with the works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@billinghurst: We're going off on a tangent here. This does not address the original question: What is the rationale behind the way the links at Electra (Q1325803) and Elektra (Q217340) are divided? No one has yet offered an answer to that question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That has been addressed IMO. Different spelling. If enWP, or anyone creates two disambig pages with alternate spellings, each needs a home, and that can only be at the alternate spellings.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@billinghurst: If the criterion is precise spelling of the page name (and not the contents), then why are there links with non-Latin page titles included? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
<shrug> I can explain why there can be the need for two disambiguation pages for similar terms, explaining linking and how it occurs is an art rather than a science. Best guess is all I can say for some of the choices. It is still better than how some of the WPs choose the home person and then disambiguate <duck, run, dink>  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Q476028

We are using for example

. Do you think is better to have an item or a qualifier to show if a club is a women football team? Xaris333 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is this old “a club is not team” problem. Do we have a solution for that? Within a club you can have men’s and women’s teams, so association football club (Q476028) is okay. But if the item is about a team (and the connected articles also describe the team), then it is a good idea to use separate items for P31. Unfortunately the articles typically describe the club (by the title), but the majority of the content deals with the (men’s) association football team. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I wanted to get solution for mentioning gender in sport's teams, disciplines etc. items. I have no problems in adding "P31: women's football team", but on item about "women's football team" I should mention female (Q6581072) somehow. sex or gender (P21) is not appropriate.
⟨ women's football team ⟩ subclass of (P279)   ⟨ association football club (Q476028)      ⟩
of (P642)   ⟨ female (Q6581072)      ⟩
? P642 as qualifier, of course... And what to do here - athletics at the 2016 Summer Olympics – women's heptathlon (Q26234145)? --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
We have competition class (P2094) which I find difficult to use correctly. The best would be to define a structural item for the competition class “open women’s association football” with instance of (P31) competition class (Q22936940), and to use it then with competition class (P2094) on the item which classifies for this class.
The problem would then shift to a proper definition of these competition class items. If we consider female (Q6581072) as an abstract competition class, one could also use competition class (P2094) here within the competition class item, maybe with a qualifier criterion used (P1013) gender (Q48277). Additionaly, it could have competition class (P2094) open (Q2735683) with qualifier criterion used (P1013) age of a person (Q185836) and competition class (P2094) association football (Q2736) with qualifier criterion used (P1013) sport (Q349). Properly set up we’d have a couple of competition classes for each type of sport, and a structure which could really nicely be queried. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds very nice. Thanks! --Edgars2007 (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that we would better have something whose subject is the competition class itself as the property association football (Q2736) (from the example) seem to link a participant class to a competion class - which would force us to create something like a "junior male football player" class to link to "junior association football male competition". It may be smarter to create a property "admissible participant type" with stuff such as
⟨ junior association football male competition ⟩ admissible participant type Search ⟨ men ⟩
⟨ junior association football male competition ⟩ admissible participant type Search ⟨ licenced association football player ⟩
⟨ junior association football male competition ⟩ admissible participant type Search ⟨ junior aged ⟩
for example - but only something minor. Maybe a little smarter would be to use the same statement for criteria that goes together and separate statements if several classes of players are allowed - for example for a competition in which licenced dart-player children and their (not dart player) grandparents are allowed we could use
  • ⟨ subject ⟩ admissible participant type Search ⟨ values in qualifier ⟩
    of (P642)   ⟨ child ⟩
    of (P642)   ⟨ licenced dart player ⟩
  • ⟨ subject ⟩ admissible participant type Search ⟨ values in qualifier ⟩
    of (P642)   ⟨ grandfather ⟩
where it's understanded that someone that meets the criteria of one of the statement at least can participate. (Unsigned contribution by TomT0m 19:17, 24 October 2016‎)
Whew, what a comment! Frankly, I don’t understand it. Three questions:
  • Why would we be forced to have occupations such as "junior male football player"? competition class (P2094) as outlined could be used on event items and on team items, not on player items.
  • Which items should get this "admissible participant type" property?
  • Do you have any events in mind which have complicated admission requirements as in your child/grandparents example? We typically deal with open age or junior age class events on a very high level here…
I have already tried to set up a structure as proposed above a while ago in the field of rowing, and I think it works nicely. Unfortunately I did non come to the point of intense usage of the structure (basic work on person items is more important at this point), but details are outlined here: Wikidata:WikiProject Rowing#Competition classes. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Negative reference

Here, I have stated that this entity no longer is a vacation area (Q10499251) from 2005-12-30, since it is missing in the report by Statistics Sweden describing that year. To be clear, that reference does not explicitly says that Slottshagen has lost its status. It is the fact that it isn't mentioned in that report of Statistics Sweden, that makes me come to that conclusion. Could that be described in a better way? This interactive map confirms my conclusion, but that page is not very helpful if you do not know how to use that page and knows exactly what you are looking for. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #232

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


Wikidata celebrates its 4th anniversary on October 29th. Around this date, a lot of events will happen online and offline.

Birthday events

Editors all around the world organize meetups to celebrate the birthday. You can join one of them or create an event in your own town!

Online

A lot of surprises, stories and presents will be shared between October 29th and November 4th. Check the project chat or the mailing-list every day to see what happens!

You can also participate by posting a story (more info here), a tweet with #WikidataBirthday, let a message or a present on the birthday page.

If you're participating to Wikidata's birthday, you can add this template to your user page.



  • Development
    • Fixed a rounding error in the geo coordinate formatter (see GitHub). Thanks, 0x686578!
    • Improvements to technical error messages, e.g. "illegal value" when editing a Commons media statement (phabricator:T141880).
    • Continued working on a new parser function to get rich, formatted statements.
    • Continued working on making entity usage information visible to users.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


Wikidata:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request for flooder flag

May I please ask for some input there? It is like a bot request, but for a flooder flag. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

value sorting according to qualifier

Is there a way to sort values of property according to their qualifiers? I am interested in the browser view of item data.

To be specific - ascendent/descendent sort of elo ratings according to their date qualifier, not date added (see Vereslav Eingorn (Q2062580) for a chess player that has elo ratings unsorted). Thanks. --Wesalius (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, currently it's not possible. There should be a phab ticket about it, which I can't find at the moment. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Might get possible - see User_talk:Seb35#sortValues_modification. --Wesalius (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Q1

Q1 seem to have a lot of strange properties related to number 1. It seems wrong to me, does that make sense to anybody?--Jarekt (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a clear case of vandalism and it has been reverted by Mahir256. Mbch331 (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

statistics on items and their statements

Hoi, I blogged about the number of items with no statements and items with more than 10 statements.. The news is good :). Thank you all, GerardM (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@GerardM: Can you add the header to the data? For me isn't clear what the numbers meaning. --ValterVB (talk) 08:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
yep, very good news, but please add headers... nothing says which column is which :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
It is a screen shot. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So the image is useless, can you explain it here or in the post? --ValterVB (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
No it is not, it shows all the pertinent data. The article includes a link to the statistics and you could find the data there. So do your best and do not whine. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Too kind. --ValterVB (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The same data can be seen on the daily https://grafana.wikimedia.org/dashboard/db/wikidata-datamodel-statements?panelId=13&fullscreen . I don't agree with the interpretation given. While the number of items with zero is getting lower, I don't see why it can't be closer to zero. The picture looks even better on a per site or per project level: Wikidata:Database_reports/without_claims_by_site.
    Numbers look bad for some Wikisource sites and they have an impact on the overall numbers. However, many items for Wikisource pages are unlikely to get a lot of statement, maybe 2 or 3. Many of these could easily be filled by bot, so it might not matter that much if they don't have any statements.
    Even for items with sitelinks to Wikipedia, many wont get more than 1 statement (categories, disambiguations, templates). So I don't quite see the point of comparing items with 0 statements to the one with many statements.
    --- Jura 17:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • <grin> I am sure this is not the same data </grin>. You only provide a graph that only shows some data and not from the beginning of Wikidata. Your interpretation is wrong. The point is that the trend is such that for the first time there are more items with loads of statements than items with no statements at all. That is it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

+- workaround

See this. If I add "156±30", the result is "160±30", but in editing form I see what I actually entered. I know, why it's happening, but is there some workaround to have right values in GUI? Except changing uncertainty part, of course. --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to make it stop doing that. It probably won't be possible until phab:T95425 is fixed. - Nikki (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Nope, despite multiple threads here and on the dev's noticeboard and several related phab tickets going back months at least, there is currently no fix or workaround. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): what is the current status of work on this? Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
A patch is prepared. I need to do the announcement writeup with some explanations and we need to deploy it. Hope to get to it after my vacation. I'll be back on the 3rd. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation for review: Technical Collaboration Guideline

Wikimedians, please review something we are working on for the Wikimedia Foundation, the mw:Technical Collaboration Guideline.

The Technical Collaboration Guideline (TCG) is a set of best practice recommendations, for planning and communicating product and project information to Wikimedia communities, in order to work better, together. The TCG allows Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Product teams and Wikimedia communities to work together in a systematic way in the product development and deployment cycle. It is hoped that the TCG is useful enough to be utilized in planning and communications regarding any project, from anyone. The TCG is intended to be flexible as plans and products change in development; it is a guide whose contents will help build collaborative relationships.

The initial draft of the TCG was written after discussions in small groups with members of the Community Liaisons and Product Management teams, to identify successes and failures in communication, and what we can do to encourage collaboration with the communities. Over the next month, we are seeking review and feedback from Wikimedia community members. All feedback that is left will be read; if there is a case for immediate action, it will be made. All feedback will be taken into consideration when editing the next draft of the TCG. Please keep in mind that the TCG is intended to be lightweight information and instruction and will not be completely comprehensive. The TCG and the conversations about it are in English, but comments from all languages are welcome. We look forward to reading your comments at mw:Talk:Technical Collaboration Guideline. Thanks. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong links in side bar

What is causing this[12] situation where you get the wrong item (Pseudomyrmecinae rather than Tetraponera) linked in the side bar? JMK (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit the category @ Commons and you'll see old skool wikilinks. They can obviously be deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

How do you track the items (data) that you have subscribed in your watchlist?

Hi folks!

I would like to ask a quick question :-)

How do you keep track the huge amount of items (data) that you have subscribed in your watchlist? My assumption is that, because you subscribe to a lot of items, it will generate a long list of item notifications to your watchlist.

Thanks for your answer! --Glorian Yapinus (WMDE) (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It's hard sometimes as I want to see certain bot edits, but some bots are okay for me. It would be great if I could filter those out more easily (username CSS classes are maybe a start, maybe in combination with a namespace one). Another suggestion is a tool where you can clean up your watchlist based on SPARQL queries. So I could, for example, remove all taxonomy items from my watchlist. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I have no item in my watchlist, only user and Wikidata pages. Sometimes, I´m using SPARQL-queries to find false statements. --Molarus 15:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
~10 000 items on my watchlist, no problems to keep track of all changes (with rare exceptions). I’m not sure whether this is already a lot. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If you talk about whatchlist in Wikidata I have very few items in my watchlist. Normally I use SPARQL or lists automatically generated from me or from other users --ValterVB (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not use anything technical except for a gadget which highlights unseen items (to keep track of them when I switch computers), and it costs me between an hour and two hours per day just to go through my watchlists on the four Wikimedia projects I have administrator privileges.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I have app. 14 000 items on my watchlist. Built-in filtering is useful (mainly bot and ORES-based probably good edits), but it may be useful to upgrade with ability to filter out semi-automated edits (at least those with reCh or Widar tags) as well.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jklamo (talk • contribs).
My watchlist contains pages created by me, some other interesting pages and then those pages that are popular targets for vandalism. I'm not so interested of seeing bot edits, as they are usually correct. Sometimes my watchlist is full of widar edits, and I can't find easy to way to hide them. --Stryn (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Location of HongKong

The coordinate location (P625) of Hong Kong is precise up to 11 meters which is rather shocking since Hong Kong is an island between 4 and 16 km wide so the island location should be at least +- 1km. This discrepancy come to my attention because c:Category:Pages with local coordinates and mismatching wikidata coordinates lists pages with discrepancy between Commons and Wikidata locations and Commons location of Hong Kong is 3 km away. How do I alter or even see the geo-precission stored with each coordinates? Right now I can see it at c:Category:Hong Kong (yellow box under location) which is pulled by LUA from Wikidata. But I do not know how to fix it. --Jarekt (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Its precision is 1/1000 or an arcsecond now. You can change that by going to Q8646#P625 edit it and put your cursor in the field with the coordinates. Then will a field drop down and show you the precision. You can change that to almost whatever you like. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Innocent bystander Thank you that what I was looking for; however, I can not reproduce it. You suggested to "put your cursor in the field with the coordinates" and the "field [will] drop down and show [] the precision". I can put my cursor anywhere over that field and nothing happens, except to show me the link to GeoHack if I park it over the coordinates. Clicking on "1 reference" will show me that it was "imported from" "English Wikipedia". I can not make it to show me the precision or globe or change them. Do you have some gadget or extension that helps. Some of the things affecting interface can be very trivial. I just figured out that the easiest way to allow me to import labels and descriptions to Wikidata for languages I do not speak is to add XX-0 flags to my {{#babel}} tag, one for each language I do not speak but want to copy. --Jarekt (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not aware of any Gadget installed for this. The only strange I have here is that I use the Monobook skin. But what I did is that I pushed the edit-button, then put the cursor in the field with the "6*7'8"N 9*10'11"E" and then the field with the precision droped down. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. That worked in vector skin as well. I do not know how I missed that. May be because sometimes it takes a while for the full page to load and various features do not work properly until it does. I had the same issue arguing that links are not added to identifiers like VIAF or to links to pages on Commons. They do ... eventually. and if the do not than reloading the page works most of the time. --Jarekt (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Rejecting claim for Universe (Q1) fails

When I try to reject a claim in Universe (Q1) (the two point in time properties) I get a pink message box that says something like "set state to wrong failed" and some grey and black boxes next to the claim keep flashing until I navigate away from the page. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, are you trying to remove the claim, or set it to the deprecated level? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Trying to remove it. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Sidebar section for ITEMS?

Hello. This morning I had to merge two items (Q4226027) and found it kinda hard to find back how to do it. (Eventually remembering it's somewhere in "Special pages".) In the sidebar, why not add a section above TOOLS, dedicated to ITEMS? Maybe like this:

ITEMS

  • Create a new item
  • Merge two items
  • Item by title
  • Recent changes
  • Random item

They're all elements from the current sidebar, plus "Merge two items". 62.147.62.175 15:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a dropdown menu left to the search box which offers convenient access to a merge form on all item pages, where you just need to provide the other item’s Q-ID. I think this needs to be activated on the gadgets section of the preferences. I never missed merge links anywhere else. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Someone finds unlinked articles on two Wikipedias, you think they're going to install some gadget? I think without "Merge two items" in the sidebar, most will give up. 62.147.24.123 19:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
You should be messaging the appropriate higher authorities to request that the merging gadget be enabled by default on new accounts, rather than threaten on behalf of other IPs to not contribute to Wikidata otherwise. Mahir256 (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Editing logged-in does give many better options for the regular user. It is also somewhat reasonable to not put powerful tools, like merge, waving teasingly in the purview of some IP editors. I think that it is a reasonable compromise to make the merge tool available but not to overly advertise it. There is ready information available at Help:Merge that steps someone interested people through the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Error

I am trying link a page from the English Wikiversity in Greek and I can't. Please fix the problem.--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Πανεπιστήμιο: Please be more descriptive - which pages you were trying to connect and what error message did you get? --Edgars2007 (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Edgars2007:! I tried link page Greek language in Τμήμα:Ελληνικά. I get this message «Error: $1 You have attempted to add the name of a language as the label/description/alias of an item. Please see Help:Label, Help:Description or Help:Aliases for information on proper item descriptions. Press save again to save your edit.»--Πανεπιστήμιο (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

What's so hard about "Press save again to save your edit"? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like you got caught by an abuse filter or something as you tried to add a "Ελληνικά". Ok, I was correct, see the log. Anyway, now created by some user at Q27514826. --Stryn (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hm, why new item? I've merged'em. --Infovarius (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

create an account

it isnt letting me create a account  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.81.133.26 (talk • contribs) at 18:26, 26 October 2016‎ (UTC).

In order to help you, we need more info - what error message do you see? One work-around is to create the account using a different internet connection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What to do with plurals?

I've found many items with (Portuguese) aliases which are just the plural form of the label, probably created by a bot based on existing redirects. Shouldn't these be removed? Helder 10:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This should be specify in Help:Label and Help:Aliases. If not we should define that label and aliases have to be in singular form. Snipre (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Plural form is usually OK for "list of smth...". --Infovarius (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Как подтвердить право собственности на интернет магазин?

Валерия Браун (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Браун Валерия. Добрый день! Столкнулась с проблемой и не совсем понимаю как ее решить. Создала сайт с адресом http://mirkonstruktora.com.ua/ , подключила его к Google Webmaster Tools и к Яндекс Вебмастеру, но в инструкциях по продвижению было указано об необходимости подтвердить право собственности на интернет магазин через www.wikipedia.org Возможно я не совсем по адресу или не правильно обращаюсь. Помогите пожалуйста с данным вопросом или перенаправите по нужному адресу. Буду Вам благодарна при любой помощи. Заранее благодарна Валерия Браун.

@Валерия Браун: Совсем не по адресу. Как может энциклопедия помочь с правами? P.S. К тому же здесь не Википедия, и на этом форуме принято говорить по-английски. --Infovarius (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Birthday is coming!

Hello folks,

Wikidata's fourth birthday is tomorrow, and we have a lots of things for you!

Some Wikidata editors organize events for the birthday on several continents \o/ Three meetups already took place in Turin (Q495), San Francisco (Q62) and Tokyo (Q1490), next ones are tomorrow in Paris (Q90) and Utrecht (Q803). You can find all the other places and dates here. You can also follow what happens on Twitter with #Wikidatabirthday.

During the week to come, I'll share with you the gifts that the Wikidata team and some community members prepared for the birthday. These are very exciting new features, visuals, games... You can check every day this page, the mailing-list and the birthday page to see what's new :)

I will also share with you some user stories, blog posts and other stories that people wrote for the birthday. If you write something, please send me the link so I can highlight it during the week!

 This user celebrated Wikidata's 4th birthday.

Let's start with this birthday user template that you can add to your user page, made by @Pigsonthewing:, thank you :) Thanks also @Incabell: for the banner on the birthday page!

I can't wait to start this birthday week and share all these nice gifts with you :)

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot generated data

sv:User:Lsj runs a bot that generates geographical articles (e.g. villages, rivers) in the Swedish and Cebuano wikis using freely available data from NASA and other sources. The bot extracts data about a location, then formats it into text and generates stub articles. Example for en:Abuko, with data items bolded:

Abuko has a savanna climate. The average temperature is {{convert|24|C}}. The hottest month is April, with {{convert|27|C}} and the coldest month is July, with {{convert|22|C}}.<ref name = "nasa">{{Cite web |url= http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/dataset_index.php|title= NASA Earth Observations Data Set Index|access-date = 30 January 2016 |publisher= NASA}}</ref> Average annual rainfall is {{convert|1148|mm}}. The wettest month is August, with {{convert|449|mm}} of rain, and the driest month is February, with {{convert|1|mm}} of rain.<ref name = "nasarain">{{Cite web |url= http://neo.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/view.php?datasetId=TRMM_3B43M&year=2014|title= NASA Earth Observations: Rainfall (1 month - TRMM)|access-date = 30 January 2016 |publisher= NASA/Tropical Rainfall Monitoring Mission}}</ref>
  • Would there by any problem with the bot storing the data in Wikidata?
  • Would there be any problem with articles embedding the wikidata items for a location into standardized text at display time?

Other types of data that could be stored by bots for settlements include census data and election results. Standard templates could then pull the data into chunks of Wikipedia text for articles in all languages, picking up the latest values at display time. Crazy? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I think such data *should* be stored in Wikidata, and not as generated text in the Wikipedias, together with the provenance (i.e. whether it is from NASA or other sources). Whether the Wikipedias accept this kind of text, and whether they accept queries in running text, is up to the individual Wikipedias (I am rather skeptical regarding that approach), but that's really up to the local Wikipedia communities
Even without generating the text via queries from Wikidata, there are many ways that the projects could benefit from having the data stored in Wikidata, e.g. for checking the Wikipedia text whether it corresponds with Wikidata, etc. --Denny (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
+1. We don't need GeoNames stubs, in no language.--Sauri-Arabier (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The data in question comes from GeoNames which is CC-BY licensed. A Wikipedia can important data with less copyright (sui generis database) concerns than Wikidata can. There's also a question about data quality. There are people who are concerned about importing a lot of wrong data into Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
An alternative to import only very high quality data is to provide wikidata data to quality heuristics or metrics, as told in the recent RfC : Data quality framework for Wikidata. The positive stuff about importing datas into Wikidata is that this is a starting point to improve datas by collaborative work, as opposed to trying to clean a dataset by someoneself alone. This also allows to spot inconsistencies between dataset because Wikidata can store several inconsistent datasets, hence provide some heuristic to know where the datas should be improved. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Another piece of the puzzle is mw:Extension:ArticlePlaceholder who can generate text from wikidata datas and generates stub articles on the fly. This could basically make the bot useless. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can a bot reliably tell if there is already an item about the village, river, etc.? This can be difficult due to spelling variations, alternate names, and different levels of government. For example, near me, there are Rutland County (Q513878), Rutland (Q25893), and Rutland (Q1008836). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The Swedish bot is steadily creating articles in the sw and ceb wikipedias for all locations in the world, mostly using geonames / NASA data. I assume these all get Wikidata entries. There may be errors, e.g. not realizing that Paraty and Parati are the same place, but that can be sorted out. The Swedish bot data is in the public domain: nobody can copyright mere facts on average rainfall or temperatures. Can we backtrack from existing Wikidata entries to the corresponding NASA data, then update attributes like "average July rainfall" from the NASA data, giving the source? That would give the Wikipedias a higher level of confidence about importing the data into their articles, and possibly generating articles to match the Wikidata entries. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Having doublicate items isn't necessarily an error. It's not ideal but if someone notices they can merge. On the other hand GeoNames often contains wrong coordinates for an items. If then the temperature data are pulled based on the incorrect coordinates the whole item would have real errors in it's data. ChristianKl (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Do we know how often the GeoNames coordinates are wrong, and how far they are wrong? The Swedish bot seems to be causing entries to be made in Wikidata for a great many places. I assume this includes coordinates. If they are within a kilometer or two, the temperature and rainfall data will be close enough - they are rough values anyway. If only 0.001% of the coordinates are completely wrong, we can live with that. Perfection is the enemy of excellence. But if 10% of the coordinates are completely wrong we have a very serious problem. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: I get the impression that as Lsjbot churns out geo-articles in the sv and ceb wikipedias, the coordinates from GeoNames get loaded into Wikidata. It would help to have some hard numbers on what percentages of these coordinates in Wikidata are a) accurate b) within 1km c) within 10km d) off by more than 10km. Is there a way to check a random sample of the coordinates against what we would consider reliable sources? Perhaps it could be done on a country-by-country basis. The bot data on climate etc. derived from coords+NASA could then be accepted for countries where coordinates are fairly accurate, rejected for others.
If there are countries where other sources give more accurate coordinates than GeoNames, is there a way to override the GeoNames Wikidata coordinates with data from those sources? Which are those countries? Aymatth2 (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the data quality from GeoNames is essentially random, as it depends mostly on which original database the data came from. Evaluating the quality of such an aggregated meta-database is practically impossible. It's like asking "What is the quality of data in Wikidata?". What Swedish Wikipedia should be doing is evaluating the quality of each of the 74 sources that GeoNames uses, figuring out which ones have high-quality data and importing only that data directly from the original sources. Kaldari (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the percentage of errors in Wikidata, Wikipedia and Geonames? The data IS in Wikipedia and consequently it should be in Wikidata. The best thing we can do is work on this data and improve where necessary. Dodging the bullet by making it appear to be outside of what we do is plain silly. It is what we do among other things. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with GerardM's statement "The data IS in Wikipedia and consequently it should be in Wikidata". The whole idea of importing data from Wikipedia is dicey, since the quality of Wikipedia data is not as good as some other sources. Certainly if I came across some demonstrably wrong data in Wikipedia, and couldn't find a correct replacement, I should delete the data from both Wikipedia and Wikidata. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Have we talked to the GeoNames people? I assume they have tried to use the most accurate data sources they can access, but in some cases have had to make do with imperfect sources. Spot-checks can give a good measure of the quality of data in GeoNames or, for that matter, in Wikipedia. If we find that GeoNames coordinates for British locations are 99.99% accurate in GeoNames, and 98.4% accurate in Wikipedia, we should replace all the British coordinates in Wikipedia and Wikidata with the Geonames coordinates. It is possible that one of the 00.01% of inaccurate GeoNames coordinates will replace an accurate Wikpedia coordinate, but the trade-off seems reasonable. We can then use a modified version of the Swedish bot to match the coordinates to the NASA data to get the altitude, temperature and rainfall data for those British locations and store it in Wikidata for use by Wikipedia. Why not? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't know about all the Wikipedia's, but at the English Wikipedia, if a bot repeatedly replaces information that has been individually researched by a human editor, and for which reliable sources have been provided, with incorrect values, that bit will find itself indefinitely blocked. The current compromise on using Wikidata information at the English Wikipedia (other than linking to equivalent articles in other languages) may be found at w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jc3s5h: An approach that may work is to have a bot take the coordinates given in a Wikipedia infobox (which may come from Wikidata), and use those coordinates to fetch the temperature and rainfall data from NASA and format them as text in the appropriate language. The chunk of text would be held in a separate Wikipedia file, transcluded into the article like a template, and the text would make it clear that it is NASA data for those coordinates as of the retrieval date. The bot could be rerun occasionally, or on demand, to refresh the data. It would be nice to store the data in Wikidata so all the Wikipedias could use it, but I get the impression that getting the Wikipedias and Wikidata to agree is tough. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

One large problem with Geonames is that they have matched data from different databases, but matched them so poorly that a small village with two families near my home got a population of several hundreds. This error was introduced because the village share the same name as a small town 1000 kilometers from here. The population data was correct, but GeoNames did not match the correct place. Another large problem is that Geonames have many duplicate items. Both French and English databases have been used for Canada, therefor many Canadian items in Geonames can be found twice. Once with a French name and once with an English name. A lake at the border between Northern Territories and Western Australia can be found at least twice. Places who ends with the letter Ö in Sweden, are categorised as islands, even if they are not islands. Large parts of Faraoe Islands can be found at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Almost every coordinate is rounded to nearest minute, locating mountain peaks floating in the air and lakes on dry land. Many items about buildings does not tell very much about the building at all. It only tells that this kind of building at least have existed here at some point between Stone Age and today. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • The immediate concern that triggered this discussion is with villages, where we need accurate enough coordinates to derive rainfall and temperature data from NASA. Are the GeoNames coordinates usually "good enough" for this purpose? Duplicate names are probably not a huge issue with villages. In Canada a lake, river or mountain might have variants (e.g. Lake Champlain/Lac Champlain), but a village would have the same name in both languages. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate names are an issue with villages. Villages names often aren't unique. ChristianKl (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If GeoNames has two entries for one village, St. Jean and Saint John, whatever, and they both have roughly accurate coordinates, good enough for climate data, there is no problem for the purpose being discussed as long as one of them can be matched to the Wikidata entry. The problem is when GeoNames places St. Jean, Quebec somewhere in Alabama. I suspect that wildly inaccurate coordinates are rare. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Climate data is always an approximation. My garden has different microclimates and vegetation on the dry, sunny slope in front of the house and the moister, shaded hollow behind. The climate data for a village in the Congo may be based on reports from meteorological stations more than 100 kilometers away. If we insist on perfect data we will get no data at all. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
When data is used to create articles in Wikipedias we are not talking about English Wikipedia we are talking about the process whereby new content is created in multiple Wikipedias. When we refuse to acknowledge processes like this and not include the data we have no way of improving the data before it is actually used to created articles. What use is it for us to be the data repository for Wikipedia when we refuse to be of service? It is wonderful to disagree but what does it bring us? NOTHING. We can do better and we should do better. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We should provide the best data we can, then constantly work on improving quality. Spot checks on accuracy must show the data are good and steadily getting better. Surely Wikidata can do a better job of assembling and maintaining accurate bulk data like coordinates, temperatures and rainfall than editors of individual Wikipedia articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @GerardM: The problem here isn't just the accuracy of coordinate data. We're talking about potentially importing data for 10 million place names, many of which don't even exist, are misclassified, are duplicates of other places in GeoNames, are conflations of multiple places, or are duplicates of places with different names in Wikidata. Can we seriously hope to check and fix even a tiny fraction of that? Adding new items is easy. Deleting and merging bogus ones is much more difficult. If we aren't willing to import the data directly from GeoNames, why should we be willing to import it indirectly from Swedish Wikipedia? The real danger here, in my mind, is that in the rush to fill Wikidata (and Swedish Wikipedia) with as much data as possible, we are eroding the trust that the larger Wikipedias have in Wikidata's data quality and thus alienating Wikidata from a huge editor pool, dooming it to die a slow death by data-rot. Kaldari (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: We will not do this for all the Chinese places; we already have them. We will import them anyway if they import them into Wikipedias first. We will then not have the nNow the question is: What is Wikidata good for. Why are we considering best practices for data quality when we do not make them operational, when we do not use them for the needs that are there. Yes, there will be problems but we will have them anyway and, it is much better to be in the driver sear and think on how to improve the data before they become Wikipedia articles. Just consider, all these places have likely red links in one of our Wikipedias. Kaldari, use what we have for our mutual benefit and forget about the big Wikipedias. We are there for the smaller ones as much and data and data quality is what we are there for. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • A bot developer can combine web searches with AI techniques to check whether a GeoNames place name is a) the name of a populated place, b) not a duplicate of some more common name and c) has accurate coordinates. The process is iterative: the bot generates a confidence score for a sample of items; the developer checks the high-scoring items; where there is a problem, the developer trains the bot to detect and downgrade items like this. Eventually the bot reaches the level where 99.99% of items above a given score are clearly correct. That is, among 10,000 items there is just one error. All other items are discarded or placed in a list for manual attention.
@Kaldari: Would you accept having the bot populate Wikidata on a one-shot basis with the high-scoring names and coordinates if it reached this level of accuracy? If not, what level of accuracy would you accept? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you think there's currently a person who wants to write such a bot? ChristianKl (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I might write one myself, but would not want to start unless there were clearly defined and agreed acceptance criteria. I would want assurance that I would not run into a stone wall of resistance to implementation after it had been proved to meet these agreed criteria. Let's see what user:Kaldari has to say. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You are dodging the issue. The developer of this data is able to do a lot of all this if not all of it. THe point is when we do not cooperate he can just opt to add all this data to Wikipedias and then what! They are obviously articles and there will be multiples in Wikipedias so there will be items. When he STARTS with cooperating in Wikidata, we can start with disambiguation. We can add all the rest and compare with other sources and do what is necessary (whatever that is). The articles may be placeholders in any language and in any language we can seek cooperation. Now ask yourself, is this not a perfect example of how we can leverage Wikidata in a positive way, we would be proactively working on the data quality of Wikipedia or do you really want to insist on working after the fact. In all cases we have to deal with this shit. It is in our best interest to cooperate and not be so afraid what a subset of some Wikipedia communities have to say. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @GerardM: I think you are overestimating the ability of the Wikidata community to clean up this data. No one has cleaned up any of the bogus species data that we imported from Swedish Wikipedia 3 years ago, nor is it even practical to do so. Let's say that I wanted to remove a totally bogus species from Wikidata, like Zygoballus mundus (Q5345040) (which has actually been deleted from the original database it was imported from). With a lot of effort (and Google Translate) I could probably get it deleted from Swedish Wikipedia, but it would still exists on the ceb and war Wikipedias, neither of which I have any clue how to interact with, so it will still persist on Wikidata indefinitely. Multiply that by the thousands of bogus species that need to be deleted and it quickly becomes an impossible task. I'm sure it won't be any easier getting all the abandoned logging camps and real estate developments (see below) removed from Wikidata after they are imported. Kaldari (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aymatth2: If there was such a way to automatically determine accuracy, I would probably be willing to endorse it, but this sounds like a very challenging goal to accomplish. There is also the issue of notability to consider. GeoNames has no threshold for notability. It classifies neighborhoods, ghost towns, and real estate developments as "populated places" with no way to distinguish them from actual towns and cities. To give you one clear example of the problem, let's look at Chiquibul National Park in Belize. This has been a national park since 1995 and no one is allowed to live within the park except for park rangers. Within the boundaries of Chiquibul, GeoNames includes over a dozen logging camps that haven't existed for at least 20 years. These were never permanent settlements, just camps for loggers, yet GeoNames classifies them as "populated places". If you want to double check that these are in fact abandoned logging camps and not villages or towns, here's a list of some of them: Aguacate Camp, San Pastor Camp, Los Lirios Camp, Cebada Camp, Valentin Camp, Cowboy Camp, Retiro, Puchituk Camp, Mountain Cow, Blue Hole Camp, Cubetas. The reason these are included in GeoNames is because back in the 1970s (when Belize was British Honduras), the British government did a survey of the logging camps, and this survey data eventually ended up in GeoNames. How would you propose training an AI to detect cases where "populated places" were actually just abandoned logging camps or real estate developments? I imagine you would have to give it input from more reliable databases, and if you're already doing that, why not just use those databases to start with rather than GeoNames? Kaldari (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Well, to me it looks like these places are in fact "Populated places with an end date". There is nothing strange about that. We have many such items already. I started a thread about such items here some time ago.
But we'll never be able to actually supply an end date since there are no reliable sources about these camps. All we know is that they definitely don't exist anymore. And regardless of this specific example, my point is that we shouldn't be creating items for places that aren't covered in reliable sources. As it stands now, I could create 100 totally bogus cities in GeoNames (via their editing interface) and in a few months they would automatically become articles on Swedish Wikipedia complete with official looking NASA references, and then they would be copied to other wikis and imported into Wikidata where they would live forever without anyone ever questioning their existence. Even if someone did discover that one of them was fake, there would be no way to link them to the other fake cities. Doesn't that seem like a problem? Shouldn't we demand some minimum level of quality control and verifiability for the data we import? Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I strongly advise against importing any other data than GeoNames ID (P1566) from these svwiki or cebwiki-articles. If you want to import any other data from GeoNames, then do it directly from the poor database. We have detected many strange errors in these articles on svwiki. Many of the problems were detected when the bot reached Finland. Finland is a country with a fair share of active users on svwiki, since Finland is partly Swedish speaking. The articles were found describing savanna (Q42320) in parts of the arctic country, February were the hottest month in some cases. And the data about the lakes were often hilariously wrong. The bot was halted for some time, to discuss the quality-problems but it has started again, in full speed I'm afraid. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel like someone who has poked a stick into a hornet's nest. It would be useful, if we know the name and coordinates of a populated place, to store that information in Wikidata and then to also store data derived from the name or coordinates such as census or NASA climate data so it could be shared by all the Wikipedias. I had no idea there was so much controversy about GeoNames. Lets forget about that as a source and look at the Datasources used by GeoNames in the GeoNames Gazetteer. Some of these look good to me. For example, the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística is a very reputable Brazilian government agency that provides a wealth of data about municipalities such as Cambuci that could be used to enhance the decidedly minimalist en:Cambuci article. I see no reason to treat a source like this with suspicion. This is what the Brazilian government says about their country. Is there a problem, in principle, with importing data from it so the Wikipedias can share it, and share updates? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You are still dodging the bullet and, it may miss. When you import all this data you will have a certain percentage of error. It will probably be within the 3% range and that is better than all the work that I have done. I do make mistakes particularly when I am carefully adding content by hand. So when we want a mechanism to both update Wikidata and the Wikipedias, there is a precedent, there are two precedents. Listeria is able to update all the lists we have and, with a little bit of effort it can show the content for an item in a Reasonator kind of way. There is always the Placeholder, it is the official version of all this. The point is that we are thinking in one way; quality must be maintained and each project is an island. Yes and no. Quality must be maintained and refusing this data and having it through the backdoor is absolutely the way of NOT improving data. Improving quality can be done in many ways and YES we have communities. Why not ask our friends in India to verify and complete the data for India, why not ask the same for our Welsh friends. It is then for a part up to them to help us out but they CAN have the same data available to them if they so choose, available in a Listeria / Reasonator / Placeholder kinda way.
For all the nay sayers, tell me: what prospect do you have to improve this data that is better? It is not a good idea to say: "You may not import data from any Wikipedia" because I was told that there was no option but to accept erroneous data so we have a precedent whereby dodgy data is to be accepted. If we do not accept the data I will again open a can of wurms. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If the IBGE data is imported mechanically to Wikidata it will be 100% accurate - as a reflection of the IBGE data. It will be safe for any Wikipedia article to say "According to the 2010 census by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the population was 12,456, of which 53% were female and 49% were male." The numbers do not add up, but that is indeed what the census says. The IBGE site is the official publication. IBGE may correct the numbers, and there will be another census in 2020, so we will want to periodically rerun the import to freshen up the data. As for the Wikipedias, there are two options, and I am not sure which is best:
  1. Dynamically pull the data from Wikidata at display time
  2. Periodically pull the data from Wikidata, format it and store it in each Wikipedia as a "template" to be embedded in the article.
The second approach is less immediate, but perhaps gives more control, and may be more efficient. Either way, Wikipedia and Wikidata editors would not update the data, which are identified as the IBGE numbers, not the "true numbers". If an editor finds a better source of population data than the census, they can include that in their article and suggest that it too is held in Wikidata. The Wikipedias may format the data as text or in tables according to editor preference. I see applying this approach to other reliable sources as a huge benefit to all Wikidata consumers, including all the Wikipedias. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
When the IBGE is imported, it still needs a lot of prepatory work. We already have many places of Brazil in Wikidata. It will only bring the current places and not the abandoned places. So yes it is valuable data but it is not all the data. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: Pulling data directly from the primary databases sounds like a much better idea to me. At least then we have a real source for verifiability and can assume a certain level of reliability (rather than it being a crap-shoot). Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if we assume that all data at the source is correct, there is still a lot of work to match each item in IBGE with each item here at Wikidata. You will then still get a percentage of errors. By hard work, we can improve that. GeoNames and the Lsjbot-project has here unfortunately made it worse. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Sticks and stones. You do not address the issue. Lsjbot and GeoNames are realities we have to deal with. There are also other sources that have been imported that are way more problematic. Wikidata is not operating in a vacuum. It is dangerous to think we should ignore an opportunity that allows us to have an influence on the eventual content of multiple Wikipedias. It is discrimination pure and simple. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@GerardM: I am not here to solve everything. My main opinion here is that we should not use svwiki or cebwiki as direct source for such things as height of mountains and surface area of lakes and some other data, since the methods the bot has used to find such data is very problematic. We found very large mistakes in Finland, and that is the only country we have been able to review. It becomes even worse since the bot a little to often has not been able to match correct GeoNames-item with correct Wikidata-item. That is not a big deal, if they are not matched at all. But a little to often "John Doe (city)" have been matched with "John Doe (mountain)" or "John Doe (parish)". The links to Wikipedia inside GeoNames has made it even worse since those are very often wrong. And that bad data has already been imported here. I used to daily correct such mistakes, but since I cannot see that I will finish before heat death of the universe (Q139931) I have quit doing so. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not about you. It is about what we face. You propose discrimination on the fact that Cebuano and Swedish do not matter to you. What this issue brings is to the front that according to you a lot of GeoNames data we already hold needs work and we are already doing that work. You do not qualify the error rate in GeoNames, you do not compare it to other sources. It is opinion only. Compare that to 12% of the most subscribed medicines are not proven to be effective and we are to have all recognised substances approved for medica use in Wikidata.. REALLY? I often fix links to people where there is according to English Wikipedia a link only to find that Wikipedia has no link and the linked item is a person with the same name of a different century. Wikidata is as bad as GeoNames if not worse. But we have more resources than GeoNames to improve our data and we can help them fix their data. We, not you but you as well. We cannot say that Swedish does not matter. You can say it but that is just you. We cannot because improving the data in the Wikipedias is one of the most important functions of Wikidata and when we do this well, there is no real argument left not to use Wikidata for its data. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • All sources have errors. People are born and die while a census is being taken. Clerks make transcription errors. We cannot expect to record the truth, only what plausible sources like IBGE have said. I see no difficulty matching the IBGE entries for municipalities in each state of Brazil with the Wikipedia / Wikidata entries. There are only a few thousand of them. What is involved in getting accepted definitions in Wikidata of the official census data attributes, and approval to run a bot to load them for the Brazilian municipalities? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Does the Brazilian census have Ids that they use to identitfy Brazialian municipalities? If so it would make sense to propose a new property for that Id.
In general it makes sense to announce the bot project a few days beforehand in this project chat, offer a few examples and see whether somebody objects. If nobody objects you can go ahead. In the case of the Brazilian census I doubt that anybody will object, but that's a project that has little to do with the GeoNames data. ChristianKl (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot generated data (break)

As GerardM I find the approach to ignore reality strange. I have on svwp followed Lsjbot closely with a focus on quality and I was responsable to issue a pause in August, in order for all community to discuss different issues that had turned up during the first million article being generated. There were some minor adjustment we agreed upon in order to be able to support lsjbot to continue, like not include itemtype "cliff/stoneblock" which geonames had existing on both land and in sea.

For the 1,3 M articles on species I have done an extensive analaysis, where the input from Wikidata was of great help. I found errors in a few hundred of the articles generated, representing around 1-3 per 10000 articles. In the same analysis I found that of the manual created ones the error frequences was 1-3 per 100 articles (it is easy to get the letters wrong in a latin name of 30-40 charters). I also found that of the errors reported in Wikdata about 1/3 was in fact no error. I consider this Botcreation a 100% success and also see it beinge repeated in a number (6-8 in total) of other language versions. There are challanges, though, where I beleive you with your Wikidata knowledge could help out. The taxons change frequent, meaning a number of taxons has been changes since the COL database of 2012. Could this be handled on Wikidata level and how then to tranfer this updates to the different language versions?

For geonames the quality issue is much more complex and I would very much appriciate if you put your energy and competence in discussing these. For example we know that duplicates are generated, like, as IB mentions above, in Canada where there are often created one with an English name and on with a French. On svwp we have said this is no (real) problem, as it gives the reader value anyway and it will be enogh with a mergetemplate. But how should Wikidata take care of these? We have also found that the approach on how to handle the case where a city and a commune (municipally) is more or less the same. On svwp we always treat this as two items, but we know that on other versions these are reprented in only one article. What is the Wikidata view on this? We have had a long dicssion on the quality of coordinates where it seems geonames often use a grid, making an error in the precision. But here we see this better then nothing, and when more exact coordiantes exists in existing articles these are used, and if more exact coordianted exist on other versions/wikidata these ought to be used (where you know better on how these more precise values can replace the rough ones). And there are issues worth discussing for several oher itemtypes, like weather data which is the start of this thread. Hope to see more of you in helping us in making the data from the botgerention even more valuable, and not only on a few language versions.Yger (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata has per default one item for every svwp article. Duplicate Wikidata items aren't a huge deal. For Wikidata it's more important that they data in the items is correct. That said if svwp merges two items and Wikidata items exist to map the two concepts of the svwp articles it might make sense to merge the Wikidata items as well. :As far as taxons go, could you give an example of a taxon that recently changed it's name and the data source you have for it changing it's name? ChristianKl (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 
Ceiba speciosa

Having far too much time on my hands, I checked the species mentioned in the main source for en:Rio Cautário Federal Extractive Reserve#Environment, the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment (MMA). I was interested in what the Wikipedias had, and what Wikispecies had. This is just one example of a collection of species from a location in western Brazil by someone who clearly favors reptiles over birds, so not "typical", but sort of interesting. Findings are shown below:

MMA name Alternative .en .es .sv .species Comments
Amburana acreana Y Y Y Y
Apuleia leiocarpa - Y Y Y
Bertholletia excelsa Y Y Y Y
Cedrela odorata Y Y Y Y
Dinizia excelsa - Y Y Y The .es and .sv entries are not linked
Dipteryx odorata Y Y Y Y
Erisma bicolor - - Y -
Erisma uncinatum - - Y Y
Hymenolobium petraeum - - Y Y
Mezilaurus itauba Mezilaurus ita-uba Y - Y Y In Wikispecies as Mezilaurus ita-uba
Swietenia macrophylla Y Y Y Y
Atractus insipidus - - Y -
Bothrocophias hyoprora Bothrops hyoprorus Y - Y -
Bothrocophias microphthalmus Bothrops microphthalmus Y - Y Y .sv entry as Bothrocophias
Bothrops mattogrossensis Bothrops matogrossensis - Y - -
Callithrix emiliae Mico emiliae Y Y Y Y .sv entry as Callithrix
Callithrix melanura Mico melanurus Y Y - Y
Chironius flavolineatus - - Y Y
Coluber mentovarius Masticophis mentovarius - Y Y Y .sv and Wikispecies as Masticophis
Crotalus durissus Y Y - Y .sv redirects to Crotalus adamanteus
Drymobius rhombifer - - Y Y
Drymoluber brazili - - Y Y
Enyalioides laticeps Y - Y Y
Enyalius leechii - - Y -
Epicrates crassus - Y - -
Epictia diaplocia Leptotyphlops diaplocius Y - Y - .en and .sv have Leptotyphlops
Erythrolamprus mimus - - Y -
Hoplocercus spinosus Y - Y -
Leposoma osvaldoi - - Y -
Micrablepharus maximiliani - - Y -
Micrurus mipartitus - - Y -
Ninia hudsoni - - Y -
Oxyrhopus formosus Y - Y -
Oxyrhopus rhombifer - Y Y -
Oxyrhopus vanidicus - - - - .fr has a stub
Pseudoboa nigra - - - Y
Saguinus fuscicollis Y Y Y Y
Siagonodon septemstriatus Leptotyphlops septemstriatus Y - Y Y Leptotyphlops in .en, .sv, Siagonodon in .species
Siphlophis worontzowi - - Y -
Tupinambis longilineus - Y Y -
Xenodon merremii Xenodon merremi
Waglerophis merremi		 Y - Y - .en Xenodon and .sv Waglerophis not linked

The taxonomy sometimes changes, but it takes a while before consensus is reached on the new structure. Mico vs Callithrix seems to still be under debate. Every species mentioned by the source has an article in one of the wikis, although apart from .sv and .ceb most individuals wikis get less than half the species. A central clearing house for new entries and updates giving data on taxonomy, IUCN status and range would be a major step forward. Surely that is what Wikidata is for? Aymatth2 (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot generated data (break2)

When there are quality sources such as IUCN, it's certainly the role of Wikidata to host that data. We do have IUCN taxon ID (P627), IUCN protected areas category (P814) and IUCN conservation status (P141). I doubt anybody would oppose a bot that imports that data directly from IUCN. ChristianKl (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: You are an optimist. When the IUCN Redlist does not find a species (e.g. Erisma bicolor), it directs the reader to the Species 2000 & ITIS Catalog of Life. The Catalog of Life seems reputable to me, but it is the primary source for Lsjbot, and to quote User:Kaldari (above) "Our species data is already polluted by Lsjbot." I imagine that introducing Catalog of Life common names / taxa via the IUCN back door would be just as contentious.
It would help if we had some well-defined criteria and process for determining which sources will be considered good enough for a bot to import their data to Wikidata. Then a bot developer who has met the criteria and followed the process can safely invest in the effort of developing the bot to load Wikidata. After that, of course, they have to get the Wikipedias to accept information from Wikidata. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand the phrase "import data from IUCN" to mean to import information of species that do have and IUCN taxon ID (P627). If you would cite IUCN as a source for CatalogueOfLife data for species that don't have an IUCN taxon ID (P627) than I would think that people would rightfully object. References are very important for Wikidata. Many Wikipedia's don't like to import claims without references and currently most of the GeoNames and CatalogueOfLife imported data doesn't have references on Wikidata about the provenance of the data. It would be good to focus on quality of data and not on quantity.
In general importing data from it's original source and with a link to the original source is optimal. The CatalogueOfLife is a merged data set from 143 taxonomic databases.
As far as I understand the status quo is that it's desired that people who import massive amounts of data into Wikidata with a bot ask beforehand and seek consensus. I don't think there a history of this community being angry with people who announced what they wanted to do then did what they announced with a bot. ChristianKl (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
To be clear, I strongly support importing data from reliable sources, but neither GeoNames nor Catalog of Life qualify as a reliable source. Both include self-published data that is not vetted or reviewed. For example, at the time of Lsjbot's species project, Catalog of Life used a self-published non-peer-reviewed website as the authoritative source for all data on the animal family Salticidae, which includes over 5000 species. They have since corrected this problem and now use a totally different database for this family, but the damage is done and now 3 different Wikipedias and Wikidata have bogus, idiosyncratic data for this family. With GeoNames the problem is even worse. Anyone can add, edit, or delete data from GeoNames with no oversight whatsoever (similar to Wikipedia or OpenStreetMap but without a community to patrol the changes). They also have an extremely low standard for including data in the database and poor accuracy for place classification in some areas. In both the Catalog of Life and GeoNames cases most people aren't noticing these problems because these problems don't occur with popular items. For example, the Catalog of Life data for birds is pretty impeccable, but for obscure arthropods it's hit or miss. The GeoNames data for Sweden is awesome, but for Belize it's a mess. In both of these cases, high quality data does exist; it just takes more work to find, vet, and import. Using these mega-aggregate-databases is lazy and short-sighted. As admirable as Lsj's goals are, compiling data for all the world's places or species just isn't a task that should be undertaken by a single person or bot. It should be done with careful deliberation and only using vetted reliable sources (or at least sources that have some sort of community that is keeping the data updated and clean). Regardless, I'm not a member of the Swedish Wikipedia community and I have no influence there, so GerardM is probably right. We just have to learn to live with this mess. In the meantime, I don't support making it worse by importing any data directly from GeoNames or importing anything from Swedish Wikipedia besides article titles and GeoNames IDs. Kaldari (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Kaldari, Aymatth2, ChristianKl: Question : do CoL or geonames informations are traceable ? This means, do they cite their sources ? This would mean by reimporting datas from them we could source them from CoL then add the primary source they use to second the claims. Actually we already face problems with alignement to databases who have their own bugs with VIAF datas, and the solution seem to be a cooperation with them to upstream the wikidata corrections and periodic updates of Wikidata thanks to their input. If we could achieve that and source some of the claims that were directly or indirectly imported from them by up-to-date datas, the datas they deleted imported here could be left without sources and we could deal with them - delete? deprecate? - here after we're confident a large part of taxonomy datas are sourced from over databases, for example.
Halleluja! The problem we face is that a lot of assumption we have are wrong. When you want to be inclusive about plant names consider IPNI as a source. What we consider incorrect names are often scientifically valid names. Once we decide to seriously consider collaboration, it does not follow that what a CoL or Geonames hold is incorrect. What follows is that we continue to source data to multiple sources and compare statements. We will seek understanding about differences and in this way we contribute to our quality. The point is very much about the point of view we take. We are no longer new, we do provide service to other projects. What we do is not about importing data, it is about how we deal with the data we import. For Wikipedias we MUST accept their data but that does not mean that what they hold is good. We have been curating their data in Wikidata and this is largely unnoticed.
There is a distinction between valid and valuable. Our data is no better than any of the other user curated projects. Only when we consider how we narrow down where we spend our time improving the data our work will become more valuable. In such a process our data becomes more valid. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The Catalog of Life gives its sources. See Erisma uncinatum for an example. The database is run by subject experts and is worth more than the sum of its sources since the merging and review process turns up problems to be fixed. The Catalog of Life gives a more complete and accurate overview of species than the Wikipedias, although lacking the depth a Wikipedia article may give on a given species. Yes, it has errors; all data sources have errors.
There are databases on everything from extragalactic objects to shipwrecks that provide more complete data than the Wikipedias, and keep adding entries and making corrections. They still have errors, of course; all data sources have errors. But providing data from these sources, saying where the data came from, is better than providing no data. If two sources give different values for the same data element, we can record both versions.
An update mechanism would be needed, so Wikidata would pick up additions and corrections from the data sources. For example, the accepted scientific name for a plant may change, with the former name now listed as a synonym. If the Catalog of Life scientific name value changes, Wikidata should change the value of scientific name that it shows as sourced from the Catalog of Life.
Perhaps the key is to view Wikidata as a repository of fairly current data from more-or-less reliable sources, with the sources identified, not as a repository of 100% true and accurate data. If we demand perfection we will achieve nothing. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The value of taxon name (P225) of an item should never be changed. Create a new one, move sitelinks. --Succu (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • If the source corrects a spelling error (e.g. Bothrops mattogrossensis should be Bothrops matogrossensis), presumably Wikidata should reflect the correction. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
There are very rare cases this could be carefully done. It was not necessary for Bothrops matogrossensis (Q2911754). The misspelling of Mato Grosso (Q42824) could be found in the original desription of Bothrops neuwiedi matogrossensis (Q27118116) and was reintroduced in 2008 ([13]) as the subspecies was raised to a species. --Succu (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we are violently agreeing. The sources are mostly accurate, but when an error is found it should be fixed. I expect the correction will often come from the source, since they are constantly working on their data. If we find an error in a source like the Catalog of Life we should report it back to them, cooperating in improving data quality. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Data aggregators like CoL, GBIF or EOL are a bad starting points to enrich Wikidata with reliable data. As far as I'm aware Lsj failed to correct his early (2012?) CoL import. So we (as Wikidata) had to deal with this. I doubt your analysis „I found errors in a few hundred of the articles generated, representing around 1-3 per 10000 articles. In the same analysis I found that of the manual created ones the error frequences was 1-3 per 100 articles (it is easy to get the letters wrong in a latin name of 30-40 charters).“ is well grounded. Expanding the scope of Wikidata (=taxa not treated by any Wikipedia) should be carefully done. So the mapping of Flora of North America taxon ID (P1727) is nearly complete. Flora of China ID (P1747) lacks this completness due to a high amount of spelling errors. --Succu (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@GerardM: „consider IPNI as a source“ - International Plant Names Index (Q922063) is far away from being a reliable source. --Succu (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Succu: „consider IPNI as a source“ - International Plant Names Index (Q922063) is inclusive of all the literature on plant species. Its origins are impeccable and it is superior at registering all the permutations over time. Trust me I analysed their data for all the succulents. I ended up with a 60Mb database where I normalised their data to bring all the errors ever produced in literature to a more manageable series of imho correct entries. When you talk about IPNI and its errors, you obviously do not know what IPNI is about. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
For „all the succulents“?! - No, I dont't trust this statement of yours. I know pretty well what the goals of IPNI are and what they reached until now. --Succu (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You doubt my word.. Why? I am to trust your judgment on succulents based on what.. What we do does not conform with nomenclature. Too much is missing. The author, the publication and the publication date are essential parts of a valid name. We do not hold that information so all the data is deficient in principle. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The trait „succulence“ is not well defined. So you have to say on what kind of definition your dataset is based on. Thats all. Yes, too much is missing. But that has nothing todo with nomenclature. It's a titanic workload we have to do and every help adding taxon authors and publications is welcome. --Succu (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, why bother. My approach fitted my needs. The current approach of nomenclature is wrong at best and you think what others have done is of no consequence because you do not understand it. For me most of the arguments used are problematic what galls me most is the notion that you know best and try to enforce what is not correct in the first place. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Whatever your „need“ was... I see nothing at your side that Wikidata helps to close those titanic gaps or made IPNI a better resource. Maybe you blogged about it? --Succu (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I blogged about it in may 2007. You are not really interested beyond your own scope and that is fine. It is why I did not bother with taxonomy. There is enough to do anyway. My point, the one that you acknowledge is that our taxonomy data is flawed. IPNI has quality data it is a reliable source. My problem with Wikidata is that people like do not appreciate what Wikidata is about, what it can do and why it is so relevant. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Is IPNI fit enought to be a source for the scientific names described in Descriptions of three hundred new species of South American plants, with an index to previously published South American species by the same author (Q21775025)? --Succu (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
@User:Yger: Sorry missed you. --Succu (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikdata can give excellent value at little effort if it distributes information from databases maintained by specialists. We should attribute the data to the sources and refresh the data from the sources to ensure we reflect their current view. We do not have the resources to do it ourselves. User:Yger analyzed the articles on species, found errors in 1-3 per 10,000 bot-generated articles, and found errors in 1-3 per 100 manually created articles. If we try to compete with the specialist databases we will fail. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Flora of North America (Q1429295) is a series of books accompanied by a website. An what you propose is allready done. --Succu (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Aymatth2: ITIS is a lame duck and not an up-to-date resource. ITIS is not a „specialist databases”. FishBase (Q837101) or Avibase (Q20749148) are far better. --Succu (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The analysis as run by Yger seems meaningless (to put it kindly). Any analysis depends on input data, and in this case there are no reliable input data. It is also meaningless to use the amount of error recorded in Wikidata as a starting point: finding errors is a difficult and thankless business, and therefore it is mostly not done. At a rough guess only 1% of the errors in svwiki has been marked as such in Wikidata.
        As Kaldari says, CoL is very variable in the quality of its data at any one time, and this will vary with time (what was hopless last year is better this year, etc).
        There are areas in svwiki (based on CoL) where the error rate is something like 50% (CoL does give its sources, and almost invariably these sources make it clear that what ended up in CoL is wrong). Hopefully this 50% is a maximum, found only in limited areas, but there is nobody who can really know how much error there is in svwiki. All I can tell is that the error rate is off the scale.
        And by errors I do not mean taxa that have changed their name (in such cases both names are found in the literature, and are good data), but I mean 'taxa' that do not exist, never have existed, and never will exist. - Brya (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yger: You say I consider this Botcreation a 100% success. An example I'm running into today. In Four new species of Hypolytrum Rich. (Cyperaceae) from Costa Rica and Brazil (Q27137125) four new species are described: Hypolytrum amplissimum (Q27136913): Hypolytrum espiritosantense (Q15587199), Hypolytrum glomerulatum (Q15588104), Hypolytrum lucennoi (Q15588880) and Hypolytrum amplissimum (Q27136913). Lsjbot (Q17430942) failed to create the latter one. Do you include such omissions in your analysis? --Succu (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
@Brya: These are serious allegations against organizations that receive significant public funding. Can you point us to examples of errors in items on the Catalogue of Life database? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
These are not allegations but observations. They are not new either. For heavy rates of error check the Ebenaceae or Apiaceae in svwiki against the current CoL (CoL has realized its error). For an example that illustrates that Yger is personally putting back complete nonsense see here. - Brya (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot generated data (break3)

  • @Brya: I am not particularly interested in what has happened in the past, except in what we can learn from it. There were teething problems with the Catalogue of Life, and we have no automated process to refresh our data as they make corrections and additions.
Your example is useful. Maba quiloënsis was described by Hiern in 1873, named Ebenus quiloënsis by Kuntze in his 1891 Revisio generum plantarum vascularium... and named Diospyros quiloënsis by White in 1956. The last is now the accepted name. The Natural History Museum, Vienna (Q688704) "Virtual Herbaria" had entry 260951 for Ebenus quiloënsis, and entry 69345 for Diospyros quiloënsis aka Maba quiloënsis. They have since merged the entries so they are identical, giving all three names, but the Catalogue of Life has not yet picked up the merger.
It would be correct for us to record that the Catalogue of Life shows Ebenus quiloënsis and Diospyros quiloënsis as separate species, while the UofV "Virtual Herbaria" shows them as synonyms. This is not "complete nonsense". Then, when the Catalogue of Life makes the correction, we should refresh our data to show their current view. Have you notified the Catalogue of Life of this problem, which may be an oddity or may be systemic? Do you know of other problems with items on the current Catalogue of Life database? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The CoL has been going for quite a while, some fifteen years, with a new version every year. It had and has more than teething problems. Quite a few are structural.
        Maba quiloensis, Ebenus quiloensis, Diospyros quiloensis are three different names (three different formal nomenclatural entities), so there can be / should be three items in Wikidata. These names are homotypic, so they can not refer to different species, by definition. They refer to the same species (not necessarily the same circumscription) and in any particular taxonomic viewpoint only one of these names can be used at a time. If one believes in a genus Maba (which nobody has for quite a while) then Maba quiloensis is (likely) the correct name for a species. If one believes in an all-encompassing genus Diospyros (which has been the consensus for quite a while) then Diospyros quiloensis is (likely) the correct name for a species. By definition, Ebenus quiloensis is never the correct name of a species (never has been). If svwiki is aiming to be an encyclopedia, then it should have at most one entry for the species. In fact, dewiki would not allow an entry such as held by svwiki, as it has no meaningful content. But svwiki does hold two entries both claiming that the name is the correct name of a species: a miraculous duplication of species. Or to put it differently, a bold faced lie.
        I see you failed to run even a basic comparison between svwiki and CoL (you are just defending svwiki's wrongdoings?). The CoL has had Diospyros quiloensis as the accepted name for something like a year and a half now. Recording that CoL has held different contents earlier would only be useful in a database that collected metadata on errors in databases. Brya (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Brya: I missed the fact that the Swedish wiki is citing the historical 2014 version of the Catalogue of Life, since corrected. This is a useful example because it shows the danger of importing from a source but not updating. If Wikidata had imported Ebenus quiloënsis from the Natural History Museum, Vienna (Q688704) "Virtual Herbaria" in 2014, we would have got the same information as the 2014 Catalogue of Life entry. If we had not refreshed that data, we would still be reflecting the error in the 2014 "Virtual Herbaria", as the Swedish Wikipedia does. If we refreshed from the latest "Virtual Herbaria" or the latest Catalog of Life we would automatically get the correction. Again, can you point us to problems with items in the current Catalogue of Life database? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be increasingly separated from reality? The Swedish Wikipedia / svwiki has not been refreshed but is still showing all the errors it has imported. As I remember the Vienna database, it did not have these errors, but these were generated by CoL. - Brya (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Brya: I am not trying to defend the Swedish Wikipedia, which has not been refreshed but is still showing all the errors it has imported. Can you point us to problems with items in the current Catalogue of Life database? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, the Swedish Wikipedia has not been refreshed and is still showing all the errors it has imported. A great deal of these errors are also in Wikidata, as eliminating them is very difficult.
        I don't closely follow CoL, and would be quite happy if it had never been published, but the errors are inescapable. The only error that is easily pointed at is the BIG ERROR, whereby the names of cattle, sheep, the goat, etc are wrong (disallowed by the ICZN: CoL has them wrong because ITIS has them wrong, ITIS has them wrong because MSW has them wrong, and MSW has them wrong because they were rushed by an oncoming deadline and they panicked). But an indicator of the degree of error can be found in the amount of homonyms: these can be likened to names that jump up and down shouting something wrong here, please take action. Any time I look (which is not often) I seem to see such homonyms. Of course homonyms are not the only errors, but they are easily visible: the tip of the iceberg. - Brya (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Like I said cattle (the CoL-entries "Bos taurus indicus Linnaeus, 1758", "Bos taurus primigenius Bojanus, 1827", "Bos taurus taurus Linnaeus, 1758" are wrong), sheep (the CoL-entries "Ovis aries Linnaeus, 1758", "Ovis aries aries Linnaeus, 1758", "Ovis aries orientalis Gmelin, 1774" are wrong), the goat (the CoL-entries "Capra hircus Linnaeus, 1758", "Capra hircus aegagrus Erxleben, 1777" are wrong), etc. In this case because the ICZN has ruled against them (see amongst others here). - Brya (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
It would be of more interest if they changed their mind in Handbook of the Mammals of the World. Volume 2: Hoofed Mammals (Q21682705). --Succu (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
You are twisting facts. Certainly "the traditional approach of treating the wild goat as a sub-species [of the domesticated goat]" is a wild reversal of fact. MSW in its earlier editions deviated from a very well-established tradition among zoologists treating the domesticated animals as part of their wild predecessors, so several zoologists put in a formal case at the ICZN to put a stop to it. After allowing and evaluating input from zoologists across the world the ICZN decided to follow tradition and made this tradition mandatory for the animals enumerated in the case.
        It did not rule "that wild relatives of domestic animals should be named as if they were separate species," and it never would since whether or not a group of animals represents a taxon, and if so, if this taxon should be given the rank of species or subspecies is a matter of taxonomy, not of nomenclature. It is perfectly all right to recognise the wild and domesticated goat as subspecies, but the ruling is that these then must be named Capra aegagrus aegagrus and Capra aegagrus hircus. No way that Capra hircus aegagrus can be the correct scientific name of an animal. Not in this universe.
        Some of the authors of the book allowed themselves to get panicked by the oncoming deadline into perpetuating their defeated rebellion. It may be possible to feel sympathy for them, but that does not make them less wrong. The fact that there is a book that has these names wrong means very little. If somebody publishes a book that the earth is flat, or that 2 + 3 = 17, this does not make the earth flat, or makes 2 + 3 = 17. - Brya (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a presumably large but indefinite number of cases. You have made it pretty clear that it is pointless to list any of them. - Brya (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Succu: @Kaldari: perhaps you could contribute examples. It is important to understand the issues we face with authorizing the import of data. It would not have occurred to me that the Smithsonian's Mammal Species of the World was a controversial or unreliable source. Are there specific examples of other types of problem with other Catalogue of Life sources? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not use CoL. The point is to be careful when creating new items about taxa. And if possible double check them with a second reliable source. At least this is what I try to do. --Succu (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: All of those examples are relatively pointless as they are just showing that the CoL has outdated information and information from reliable sources that don't agree with other sources. The problems with the CoL are more substantial than that. Here is a better example. The CoL previously included the species name Modunda narmadaensis, which was imported to Swedish Wikipedia, and subsequently to Wikidata. The name Modunda narmadaensis originates with a self-published website that cites itself as the source of the name (with no other explanation). The name has never been accepted by any peer-reviewed source or the authoritative catalog for the family. It is purely the speculative opinion of one person on the internet who couldn't be bothered to write a paper about it (or lacked the evidence to do so). Same with Modunda pashanensis and numerous other examples. The Catalog of Life is only as good as the feeder databases that it pulls from, and in some cases it has pulled from very low-quality databases that are not reliable. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
To the CoL's credit, they have since deleted Modunda narmadaensis entirely, but it still exists on three different Wikipedias. Kaldari (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
It's Bianor narmadaensis (Q3150207). --Succu (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: I was hoping for examples of problems with the current Catalogue of Life. Past errors are relevant, but errors in the present stable version would be more relevant. So far all that has been identified is the Smithsonian / ICZN difference on domestic animal names, which may be just a problem with publication dates – although that is a type of problem that must be recognized. Given the level of EU / US government funding, the contributors, curators and consumers of the data, one would expect very high quality – certainly higher than most specialist databases on other types of information from which we might want to import data. There is a trade-off between taking data from an aggregator like the Catalogue of Life, perhaps being selective about originators, and going direct to the originators. The aggregator provides a convenient single interface to a bot, with a single agreement for content reuse, and may add value by vetting the originators. On the other hand, they may somehow introduce errors. Do we have specific, current examples of errors in the Catalog of Life that might illustrate other types of problem? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: I don't have any examples of errors in the current Catalog of Life. In fact, I might be OK with importing data from CoL, if two conditions were met:
  1. The bot that imports the data also updates it once per year (or the maintainer provides source code for doing so)
  2. The updates support not only adding data, but also flagging items that may need to be merged or deleted (which should be done with human review)
FWIW, I personally support some of the more conservative taxonomy in the CoL (via Mammal Species of the World) but I know there are widely differing opinions on that. Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The problem is not with the taxonomy of Mammal Species of the World; I have no opinion whatsoever on their taxonomy (a matter of science), but with the fact that in some cases they use names that have explicitly been disallowed by the ICZN (the issue is not taxonomical, but nomenclatural, a matter of 'law'). - Brya (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
To illustrate, take a comparable case. There is a Google®; suppose there is a small company selling phones that decides to call themselves Google also, arguing that there can be no confusion since they are selling phones, not web-services. Google® takes them to court, and the judge, after hearing the case, rules that the small company may not use this name. CoL is like a phone directory which continues to use the proscribed name. (The difference is, of course, that Google® is a megabuck company that can enforce such rulings, while the ICZN has no direct means to enforce anything) - Brya (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. An annual (or more frequent) update is essential for many bots that import data to Wikidata, whether the data is on taxa, galaxies, municipalities or shipwrecks. Even data that should never change will change as the sources make corrections.
  2. Part of the update process would be to flag items for merge or possibly deletion, although I would be inclined to keep dud entries flagged as obsolete rather than delete them altogether.
  3. After updating Wikidata, perhaps from several sources (e.g. Catalog of Life and IUCN redlist), there should be an extract of the data and then updates to the Wikipedias. en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Bot content with updates explores how we could let a Wikipedia article transclude text generated from Wikidata, picking up updates automatically, while also containing content written by editors.
  4. Our role should not be to decide on the "correct" data, but to record what reputable sources have said. Where there is dispute, we should record both versions. Thus we should be able to say that according to Lloyd's the Santa Isabella sank on March 5, while according to the Admiralty she stayed afloat until March 7. A Wikipedia article can report what reliable independent sources say about the difference.
I think something along these lines, and other concepts, need to be formalized as a bot-generated data policy, so we can ensure that bots follow good practice and give bot developers assurance that if they follow the policy their bot will be accepted. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Before that we should define rules for users harvesting data from Wikipedias. It remains unclear what update process means. All create, read, update and delete (Q60500) operations? Why should we to rely on CoL? We match scientific names against GBIF and EOL. Why bother with CoL? Are you aware of the gender problem? I'm updating IUCN conservation status (P141) for a while, but I never would create a taxon name (P225) based on data provided by IUCN. If I did not made substancial errors we have a complete mapping of MSW ID (P959) (=Mammal Species of the World (Third edition) (Q1538807)). Or more recently English common names (=taxon common name (P1843) prefered by IOC World Bird List Version 6.3 (Q27042747). From time to time I try to close a major gaps in our species data. E.g. we had lots of genera of Foraminifera (Q107027) from eswiki, but not a lot of species. With the help of Fossilworks (Q796451) and World Register of Marine Species (Q604063) I changed this, but should we inform the Wikipedias about they missed them (adding redlinks to their genus article)? We should build a knowledge base of our own. Not copying data from aggregators. Options for taxa are data paper (Q17009938) (examples) or exploiting papers in the TaxPub format. By the way: this would give us more references we lack. As would the use of ZooBanks nomenclatural acts (=ZooBank ID for name or act (P1746)). --Succu (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Succu: I will try to respond to some of your points:.

  1. I assume there are already guidelines for importing data to Wikidata from Wikipedias. In the reverse direction, the Wikipedias will develop their own guidelines for importing data from Wikidata. They may decide to generate and later update stub articles that show what Wikidata says, which their editors can then supplement with descriptive text drawing on other sources.
  2. We should not rely on the Catalog of Life, or any other source. But it is a large, reputable database, and it will be useful to record the data that it gives – along with data from other sources. We should clearly identify that this is the Catalog of Life view, by using properties like "CoL synonym", "CoL distribution" or "CoL source". These values may or may not be the same as the equivalent values from other sources. If they are different, that is interesting.
  3. By "update process" I meant a process to synchronize Wikidata with a data source, so that Wikidata accurately reflects what the source now says. That could involve refreshing the values of properties like "CoL distribution", or nulling those values. A Wikidata item where all the properties have been nulled may perhaps be flagged for manual attention as "no longer used".
  4. If the IUCN gave a taxon name that was not found in other sources we could create an entry for it, showing that the name is used only by the IUCN. If possible the entry would point to a "correct" form. That would be useful for users who find the taxon name in IUCN and look it up in Wikidata. Assuming the IUCN later changed the taxon name, the update process would null the IUCN properties, but might leave the entry with its pointer to the "correct" form as a convenience to our readers.
  5. Almost all reference databases or books are aggregations of entries created by many individuals over a period of time. A Catalog of Life entry refers to an entry in the World Porifera database that refers to a 1932 Report on the shallow-water marine sponges in the collections of the Indian Museum, which draws on a description published in an 1885 scientific journal. At great effort we could go back to the 1885 publication, but would we be confident that it was up to date? The aggregator adds value by selecting and vetting sources. They will make mistakes, but should correct them when they are found. The 1885 journal will not correct its mistakes.

Does the above make any sense? The basic concept is that our role should not be to decide on the "correct" data, or to build a knowledge base of our own, but to record what reputable sources have said. We must accept that the scientific community will place more importance on correcting errors in the Catalogue of Life's feeder databases than on correcting errors in Wikidata, and establish a mechanism so we automatically pick up those corrections. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Catalogue of Life focuses on being inclusive and might include some data we don't want. The views of a 1885 journal are notable in a way that views from an UGC website aren't. You also claim that Catalogue of Life is reputable without linking to any expert in the field making such a statement and speaking about it's data quality. ChristianKl (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
We disagree. I wrote „we should build a knowledge base of our own“ and showed some points how this could be achived. There is no need for another CoL clone. -Succu (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Importing and maintaining views of data from the Catalogue of Life, IUCN, BirdLife International, etc. does not prevent us from independently building and maintaining a knowledge base where we have the resources. Importing data adds layers of information and differing viewpoints to the knowledge base. It is not a competition. We can do both. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think anybody here spoke against importing IUCN data. I don't see why you still treat it as being in the same category as the Catalogue of Life. It makes me feel like you aren't trying to understand the views of other people but just try to convince people to accept Catalogue of Life or GeoNames data.
Apart form data quality issues the legality of importing Catalogue of Life is also questionable. It's an EU database project (with means it has Sui Genesis in Europe) and it says at it's own website that it not only requires attribution but also noncommercial usage. ChristianKl (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Data is not subject to copyright protection. The statement that "cockspur is a common name for Castela erecta" cannot be copyright protected. The API to embed a Catalogue of Life entry in a webpage may only be used for noncommercial purposes, or by permission. Regardless of our legal rights, we would certainly obtain permission before extracting the data. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
About what „layers of information” are you talking, Aymatth2? What kind of knowledge provided by CoL helps us to be more trustable? --Succu (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • The Catalogue of Life holds basic information on more than 1.6 million species, sourced from reputable data providers like the Smithsonian, Kew, etc. and naming the sources. It gives the accepted scientific name, synonyms, infraspecific taxon, common names, classification (genus, family etc.) and distribution. Other sources may disagree with the view given by the Catalogue of Life data provider, as with the Smithsonian vs. the ICZN on domestic animals. Showing the differing views of reputable sources would give us more credibility than suppressing any views that we disagree with. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a competition about who provides the best set of linked open data (Q18692990), Aymatth2. E.g. providing structured data links to Taxon authorities like Carl Linnaeus (Q1043) and for example about Canna (Q161182) classified in his first edition of Species Plantarum (Q849308). CoL gives this „information“ about the genus. --Succu (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
CoL is a tertiary source, Aymatth2. World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (Q8035497) as a curated secondary source is much better. A link to a primary source somes times needs clarifications (e.g. gender, spelling). The point is linked open data (Q18692990). --Succu (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 
Canna indica, aka C. achiras, altensteinii, amabilis, ascendens, atronigricans etc.
  • @Succu: Perhaps you are missing the point. The Catalog of Life simply mirrors selected sites, providing a convenient standard interface. The Catalog of Life is not a tertiary source: it is not a source at all. It is a standardized interface to a number of sources. Why would we not take advantage of that standardized interface? Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Aymatth2: One example from today: CoL states that Didiscus novoguinensis (Q17133813) is a taxon synonym (P1420) of Trachymene novoguineensis (Q17137746) taken from a website called by CoL World Plants (Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World) which calls themself Flora Michael Hassler. I was not able to verify this statement using this secondary source.
Yes as you put it CoL „it is not a source at all”. So why bother? Their web service is far away from to be „convenient”. --Succu (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Succu: We seem to be talking a different language. The web service is clearly documented, with a flexible url structure giving a natural xml response. It would take far less effort to build a bot using this one well-designed service than to develop many bots using different APIs or screen scrapers to access all the different source databases. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The point is that we have a very restricted view on what is "right". Many scientifically correct names are excluded even though there is a publication to back them up. What we do is only include what some consider as current and many old well known names are lost in this way. The problem with CoL is that it is not a source that fits in with this narrow vision. Given that what we include as a taxon is wrong by definition, the ongoing argument is not about science but about assumptions that are not part of what is a taxon. It always includes an author and a publication. Given that there are many autonyms that are not the same it is proof that the current approach is wrong more than CoL. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
We don't. BTW: An autonym (Q1837887) is not a homonym (Q902085) and we have only minor problems with them. An exact page reference is essential in modern biological nomenclature (Q522190). taxonomy (Q8269924) is subjective judging. One of our ongoing tasks is to model the relationship between different taxonomic opions. CoL provides his own taxonomic opinon. Why should we restrict us to this opinon, GerardM? --Succu (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Why do you think we are not able to do this, Aymatth2? Because nobody was interested to express this relationship with a good reference at hand? --Succu (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot generated data (break4) @Lsj

Mind to comment User:Lsj? --Succu (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bot generated data (break5)

The deletion log at svwiki today shows a set of deleted bot generated articles. (University-articles only describing the geography around a building.) The opposition against the GeoNames-based articles on svwiki is increasing. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like good news to me. --Succu (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Fish

How should we link fish (Q152) (the animal) with fish as food (Q600396) (the food)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What about natural product of taxon (P1582)? --Micru (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I've done that for now, but it feels a bit of a cludge. What do others think? I see we also have the inverse, this taxon is source of (P1672). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
It is a bit of a cludge, but is not unique in that respect. Seems to be the best we can do for the moment. - Brya (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Happy birthday Wikidata!

 

Hello all,

This it, the fourth anniversary of Wikidata! I'd like to say thank you to all the people who make this project awesome. Each one of you, all the people building cool tools for and reusing Wikidata data, and of course our development team working very carefully to improve our favorite collaborative knowledge base.

And now, let's celebrate!

Feel free to let a message on the bottom of the birthday page, tweet with #Wikidatabirthday, or attend to an event (next ones tonight in Paris and Utrecht).

Happy birthday Wikidata \o/ Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

We had a pie to celebrate the birthday, see the photos at: c:Category:Wikidata's 4th birthday in the Netherlands. Romaine (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Changing in the main page for the fourth birthday

Hey, I changed the main page and added small gift icon before the Wikidata name Special:Diff/398127061. Feel free to remove or change. Thanks Amir (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Translate some words

Hello. Using Wikidata in Greek language, when a property has already a value/item, its shows "add" and when you put the cursor on it, its showing "Add a new value". In English. Where I can translate that? Xaris333 (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

See (currently) last section at WD:Devs. --Edgars2007 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability of chess players

In my opinion, untitled players are not notable for wikidata, only Grandmasters, International Masters and FIDE Masters (and the analogous women titles). Players without titles are mainly hobby players, and with ratings down to 1200 Elo, every young adult could have such a rating and hence a FIDE rating card, there is nothig special about it. We would flood wikidata with thousends of completely irrelevant people. Other opinions? Steak (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

No one (including me) is aiming to flood wd with thousands of completely irrelevant people. I created items for players with elo above 2300. That is all, I am not creating items for players below that elo (as you are implicating). --Wesalius (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok, maybe this was a misunderstanding. However, we should clarify this to avoid the flooding by someone else :) 2300 seems arbitrary, I still would suggest to limit ourselves to titled players (espcially because the rating of women is in general lower than for men). Steak (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
How many titles are there for women alone? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Woman Grand Master, Woman International Master, Woman FIDE master (and Woman Candidate Master, but I would neglect this one because its in some points different from the others). Steak (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Holding a title, not only having elo above some treshold is probably a good "criteria of notability" of chess players. If others agree to this then I have to admit I created some items with quickstatements for players that are not notable by this criteria, since I just took the elo of 2300 as a treshold for notable players (wrong interpretation of w:en:FIDE_titles#FIDE_Master(FM). I did it in good faith, no vandalism/flooding intended. --Wesalius (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

What's the data source for making these statements? What kind of information does the source give about the relevant people? Without looking at the data sources that exists it's hard to say which people can be described by "serious and public sources" (our standard). ChristianKl (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The source is here. --Wesalius (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose this: extending possible values of title of chess person (P2962) according to consensus, then importing title of chess person (P2962) claims from databases of the federations that give the titles which are possible values of title of chess person (P2962) and then running a query to get chess players that dont have any title of chess person (P2962) value set to find not notable chess players items and mark them for deletion. What do you think? --Wesalius (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This sounds very good! But of course, not every non-titled player is "not notable", especially before 1950, but there may be also later notable players which didnt get a title. Steak (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
How do you want to check whether a person who's listed in that list already exists in Wikidata? I don't think that there's an existing data base that links the Chess ID number to VIAF numbers or other authority control and the name and the country (Federation) might not be enough data to uniquely identify many people. If a professor John Smith who's notable for being a math professor also plays chess, how do you tell whether the John Smith in your list is that professor?
If the math professor John Smith is a Chess grandmaster that might be public information that can be used to link the items and therefore I would consider being a grand master a sufficient criteria. I would expect that an Elo score of 2300 is not enough to create the matches in most cases and therefore not use it as criteria. Do you think it provides the necessary information to know whether people with the same name are the same person? ChristianKl (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Check these GM, FM, IM, WGM, WIM, WFM mixnmatch catalogs. There is not too many people that the tool automatched for confirmation by the end user. So I am not really sure what your question is, since just above your post I proposed matching according to titles and not elo 2300+ itself. --Wesalius (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Do you think all the items you created can be matched based on the available information with exiting Wikidata items? ChristianKl (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you be more specific? I find your questions hard to understand. What matching are you talking about? I created articles about chess players, some of them are notable, some probably not. Then I proposed a way to defining notability of chess players and way how to filter out those that may be in the category of "not notable, therefore candidates for deletion". What existing items to be matched are you talking about? --Wesalius (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: This matching can never be 100% sure. Also in wikipedias in can happen that an article to e.g. a historian exists, an article to a chess player with the same name is created, and several years later it turns out that both persons are one individuum. We cannot exclude such cases, but we can do our best to avoid them. Steak (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not calling for 100% certainty. Could you estimate the certainty that you believe you have? ChristianKl (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I cannot quantify an (un)certainty because I dont know how other users match. I match only if the base data are identical (country, date of birth) and article in some wikipedia exists where the person is described and the FIDE profile is already linked. Steak (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Do all the entries that you create have information about the data of birth? ChristianKl (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
How is this related to the notability of chess players? I cant tell what will be the base of potential decision in matching performed by others, therefore any certainty you are asking for in possible matching is just guessing... --Wesalius (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
If you read our notability policy than it says that a specific conceptual entity has to be described by serious and reliable sources. If a description is not detailed enough to identify a specific person than I do think that's a problem for the (3) criteria. I don't think that a database entry that gives an ELO number plus a name is a description in the sense it's required. ChristianKl (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The FIDE profiles give the year of birth and also the federation the player represents. And often, there is also a picture of the player. So this should be enough information. One problem with the FIDE database is, that profiles of dead players get usually deleted. So the FIDE database is not a database whose profiles will be available at any given time in the future. Steak (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Persian speakers needed

Could a speaker please have a look at this edit [14]? This is alreasdy the third revert by the same IP. They do not do anything else and do not connect the article with any other Wikidata item. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not a Persian speaker, but Google Translate tells me that the title of the page is "good and evil" and thus properly belongs in good and evil (Q10797504). The page linked to by that item and the page in question, however, both have suggestions of merging with the other at the top of each page. Anyone know any of these people? Mahir256 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Can you help? - Nikki (talk) 10:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Mahir is right. The article is about "Good and evil" and belongs to good and evil (Q10797504) Amir (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks to all of you.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Template talk:Infobox person

At Wikipedia w:Template talk:Infobox person#Parents there is an RFC to delete parents names from infoboxes unless they are bluelinked or "particularly relevant", meaning capable of being bluelinked. If you have an opinion, keep or delete, now is the time to comment. If the RFC results are to delete the names, over 10,000 parental names will be deleted from biographical article infoboxes. Some of the data only exists in infoboxes. Almost none of the parent information is in Wikidata unless they were notable or are parents of a president. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The RFC has been closed. Can anyone do an automated backup of the data? --Yair rand (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Can someone help me delete all the data at Wikipedia? How will I search for non bluelinked parents and do a massive delete? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Not only is this not the place to discuss work on en.Wikipedia (nor for that matter to canvass for a discussion on en.Wikipedia); but the RfC is not "to delete parents names from infoboxes (plural) unless they are bluelinked ...". It actually proposed a change of wording to the documentation of a single template; and found no consensus to do so, so the status quo for that template, let alone all infoboxes, is unaltered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Birthday: Parser function, Scholia, and a new story

Hello folks,

Today I start by sharing a blog post from @Stryn: who's involved on Wikidata since the beginning of the project! Thank you Stryn :)

We received several birthday presents from editors, that's so great! Maybe you already know about Scholia, a tool to create scholarship profiles built on the Query Service. Its creator @fnielsen: added a search field, you can now type the name of a person (or the Qid) to see more about researchers' education, employers and publications. Thanks Finn for your work!


Lastly, let me introduce you a improved feature my colleagues are offering you for the birthday: the parser function {{#statements:…}}.

As you may know, for three years the function {{#property:…}} is deployed on all Wikimedia projects and allows you to display data from Wikidata, without using LUA. For example, the code {{#property:P1559|from=Q42}} will display Douglas Adams.

We improved this tool in a new parser function: {{#statements:…}}.

The new wikitext format renders statement values as syntactically meaningful elements instead of just plain text. For example, entity IDs are clickable links that link to the corresponding article, external identifiers link to the external authority, and Commons media files are rendered as thumbnails. The new output format will be available via a new parser function, via a new “formatStatements” Lua function, and via the “wbformatentity” API, when used with “generate=text/x-wiki”.

The new parser function is in early development. The output produce may change any time. {{#statements:…}} is currently disabled on all wikis except the beta cluster. We hope to enable it within the next weeks when we consider the feature stable enough. For now, you can see and test it on the beta German Wikipedia. See an example and the difference between the two functions.

We are really interested by your feedbacks: please leave comments on the Phabricator ticket or on Wikidata:Contact the development team.

This feature was built by multiple developers from the Wikidata team with help from volunteers. Mostly @hoo_man: and @Thiemo Mättig (WMDE): as well as @Daniel Kinzler (WMDE): and @Jonas Kress (WMDE):. Special thanks to the volunteers that contributed in Phabricator discussions, especially @Izno:!

Cheers, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing descriptions from Wikipedia Android app

Hello! I've started a new request for comment regarding editing descriptions from the Wikipedia Android app. Please visit the page and feel free to comment! DBrant (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #233

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

The birthday week started and already a lot of events happened, presents have been shared, stories have been told! Here's what you may have missed:

The birthday party is not finished yet, every day until November 4th you will discover new presents and stories. Follow the project chat or the mailing-list or #Wikidatabirthday to get the news!

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/10&oldid=1102552582"