Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2019/10

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


Set rank via API

I want to set the rank of statements via the API. But I do not find an explanation how to do this in the documentation. Can someone help me or has an code example? --GPSLeo (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You can retrieve a claim with wbgetclaims in JSON format, modify it locally, and change it then with wbsetclaim by sending the modified claim serialization. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be better to use action=wbgetentities&props=claims|info, so that the response also includes a lastrevid; then you can pass this revision ID as the baserevid of action=wbsetclaim, so that the API can detect and possibly patch changes if there were any other edits between the two requests. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. But that also means that it always needs two edits. One for adding the statement and one for setting the rank for the statement. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
No, why should that be necessary? If you‘re creating a new statement, you can create it with the correct rank right away. (You can create such a statement manually, e. g. on Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189), and use the browser dev tools to see what network request is used.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
It would be incredibly useful if somebody could patch Wikidata-CLI to do this, or create a similar tool with a similar interface that can do this. At the moment there doesn't seem to be any tool one can use to alter the rank of a set of statements. Jheald (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
+1. We have thousands of items with old population (P1082) numbers in "preferred" rank, because while it's easy for everybody to add new numbers through QuickStatements, it's impossible to change ranks if you don't write your own bot. Ayack (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Pywikibot has a "setRank" function that is pretty easy to use; with PAWS, it is also easy to execute such a bot script. I'd say that ~1 screen of code is probably enough to fix this problem. --MisterSynergy (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Is there some documentation about the "setRank" function? I've found nothing in Manual:Pywikibot. Thanks. Ayack (talk) 09:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Here you can see that it is existing, but no useful documentation is available. I have used it in the past, however, so maybe you can understand e.g. this pywikibot script (look for "getRank" and "changeRank" functions in that particular case; "setRank" should be very similar). --MisterSynergy (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at it. Ayack (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata WikiProject India Newsletter is live!


We are very happy to announce that we have started a quarterly newsletter featuring news, updates and plans related to Wikidata activities in India. You can find our first issue here. If you do not want to receive this kind of notification further, you can remove your username from here.

Bodhisattwa (CIS-A2K) (talk) Sent through  --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
(on behalf of WikiProject India.)

Alphabets, writing systems, scripts, typefaces

Is anyone aware of a robust ontology for alphabets, writing systems, scripts, typefaces, and the like, other than/in addition to Getty's AAT? As the linked identifiers on blackletter (Q213686) show, Wikidata (and most Wikipedia articles) have a tendency to conflate a handwritten medieval script and the typefaces based on that script. I believe these need to be disentangled into separate hierarchies.

Because of examples like "blackletter" I think it may be prudent to keep blackletter (Q213686) as "class of medieval scripts and typefaces based on them" with <has parts of the class> [blackletter-script] and [black-letter typeface]. AAT has guide layer in its hierarchy "<script and type forms>" and perhaps this points a way toward a compromise between what's in Wikipedias and Commons and a strict hierarchy that separates handwriting from typefaces. Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Q7703332: Czech folk music groups VS Czech contemporary folk music groups

Could somebody, especially native English speakers, help to solve the problem with this item? ŠJů (talkcontribslogs) changed its Commons interwiki link from "Category:Folk musical groups from Czechia" to "Category:Contemporary folk music groups from Czechia". I changed it back and talked with ŠJů. After arguing with me, he/she reverted my edit and also changed its English label to "Category:Czech contemporary folk music groups" in spite of its category in the English Wikipedia.

As I understand it, his/her rationale is its Czech category is translated as "Category:Czech contemporary folk music groups" in English, therefore he/she believes that its English and Commons categories should be called like that as well. I doubt it can be called a solution, it looks like ŠJů imposes his/her personal views without a thorough discussion with the English-speaking community.

Also, I ask Wikidata administrators to confirm his/her actions or revert it back. Thanks in advance.--Russian Rocky (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

As it was clearly explained in the previous discussion, the problem is that English Wikipedia in its category tree en:Category:Folk music groups by nationality mixes together the Anglo-Saxon meaning ot "folk music" (= folk music (Q235858) - national music, folklore music) with the European meaning (= contemporary folk music (Q43343), contemporary folk music). As I can see, Russian Wikipedia uses also the European terms (Russian article ru:Фолк-музыка is about contemporary folk, ru:Народная музыка about (traditional) folk), i.e. the core should be understandable even for Russian Rocky, if he was able to perceive facts and arguments from the discussion. As explained in the previous discussion, Category:Czech folk music groups (Q7703332) was created, intended and used just for categories which collect music groups of folk style in the European meaning, i. e. for the Czech en:Category:Contemporary folk music groups. For the traditional-folk groups, we have the item Category:Folk groups from Czechia (Q9232134), which has not special "musical" subcategory yet, because most of the groups combine music, dance and other folklore traditions together. However, Category:Czech folk music groups (Q7703332) falls clearly under Category:Contemporary folk music groups (Q8462878), not (directly) under Category:Folk music groups (Q55958741). The fact that en:wiki misses Category:Contemporary folk music groups by country (Q61983681) within Category:Contemporary folk music groups (Q8462878) and doesn't distinguish this "by country" structure from Category:Folk music groups by nationality (Q8462879) is a problem of en:wiki only. Wikidata an Commons have this problem clearly solved in principle (even though some individual interwiki links or national labels can be incorrect or mistaken). --ŠJů (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
ŠJů, the problem is that your renaming practices don't make much sense and based only on your whim. If everybody starts to rename Wikidata categories despite their names in the English Wikipedia, it'll turn Wikidata into a mess.
The category is called en:Category:Czech folk music groups, period. Nominate it and prove your point in the English Wikipedia, rather than forcibly renaming it in Wikidata on weak excuses. That's the message.--Russian Rocky (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Please try to express your reaction to discussed facts, arguments and problems, if you are able understand what's going on. --ŠJů (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
You're unable to properly explain why you rename categories in Wikidata despite their names in the English Wikipedia. Your "explanation" isn't really an explanation, but a weak excuse. It emboldens other people to rename English categories in Wikidata proceeding only from their own views. That's the problem, but you turn a blind eye to the dangerous precedent.--Russian Rocky (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that ŠJů explanation makes sense. Words frequently have multiple meanings and at Wikidata we care about linking items together that mean the same thing instead of items that are named the same. ChristianKl❫ 15:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: it seems you didn't get my point. I'm not against linking the Czech and English categories together. The problem is ŠJů arbitrarily renames English categories despite their names in the English Wikipedia. As you can notice, the category is called Category:Czech folk music groups in the English Wikipedia, but ŠJů renamed it to Category:Czech contemporary folk music groups in Wikidata. It's confusing and makes searching difficult.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing arbitary about finding names on Wikidata that are intend to reflect what a category is about instead of names that match external names 1-to-1. ChristianKl❫ 07:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Help:Label says the opposite: "But note that for other client wiki namespaces like "Category" and "Template" the labels should be identical to sitelinks (the disambiguation parts shouldn't be removed), as these types of pages usually have only one common type of descriptions and there may occur API errors of non-unique pair consisting of label + description when trying to set descriptions to other items.".--Russian Rocky (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I think "should" should generally read for policy in the RFC 2119 sense e.g. "there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course". I do think that ŠJů argued why there are valid reasons in this case not to have the same name. The core intent of this sentence is also about not removing disambiguation, it's not about not adding further disambiguation. ChristianKl❫ 11:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Every guidline in the English Wikipedia uses "should" to begin with, but people still follow them. I don't think Wikidata is kind of different.
Sorry, but I'm not convinced with your vague answer. It looks like your own interpretation rather than a reflection of consensus. I don't think ŠJů's reasons are more valid than possible API errors and complicated searching affecting everyone. I thought you could explain it better in Help talk:Label#Category and template labels, but it's your subjective interpretation again which doesn't explain when we should or shouldn't change category labels. Others are welcome there as well, share you opinion please.--Russian Rocky (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me that if we intend to model categories, and if there is an English-language name for the category, used on en-wiki, we should follow it for our English-language name. The only exception I can think of is if Commons has a distinct name for the same concept, and we think the chose better. en-wiki and Commons both have processes to discuss category names if people think they are wrong. One person changing it here unilaterally because they disagree with the consensus on the sites that have a process seems like a poor plan. What's to stop the next person coming along and changing it yet again? - Jmabel (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Find WD redirects

Does somebody knows how to find the items that have been redirected after a merge ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere for instance, or ?redirect owl:sameAs ?item in SPARQL… —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, MisterSynergy. SPARQL is what I looked for. Amadalvarez (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge Q817393 and Q6939850

Because these items overlap, they require specialized merge. Monniasza (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Monniasza: they can't be merge, not until en:Black people and en:Murzyn is merged. And it seems to be two different concepts (the second being a subclass of the first I guess?). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Both sitelinks are for the term "Murzyn", not for an article about black people. Searching for a link to "Black people", I found pl:Afroamerykanie (African American) links to pl:Czarna Afryka (Sub-Saharan Africa), which links to pl:Czarna odmiana człowieka, which is linked to negroid (Q338460) here. Peter James (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
@Peter James, VIGNERON, Monniasza: Please also consider merging both Commons categories, otherwise this merge request can't work. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
They shouldn't be merged, items linked to Q6939850 are about the word "Murzyn" - the Commons category is a subcategory of Category:Polish language (Q6916114). The English and Commons content doesn't belong in the pages connected to Q817393, so Q6939850 is still needed unless the article and category are deleted. The Polish article could be expanded and moved to Q817393 but for now should stay linked to Q6939850. Peter James (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

RfDs archival


how often is WD:RfD archived? And what about sections marked as resolved for days?

Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2019 (UTC).

Most sections get almost instantly archived, but they must be marked with {{Deleted}}, {{Not deleted}} ({{Not done}} doesn't get recognized by the bot) or {{Merged}}. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hazard-SJ: Could we allow the bot to also recognize ({{Not done}}? ChristianKl❫ 09:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Gadgets with wrong link to help...


the link to help on KeyShortCuts gadget is wrong, since it has been archived. Could someone please change it to Wikidata_talk:Tools/Archive_1#Keyboard_shortcuts

It is a very useful tool, that I often recommend to new contributors. It would be better if the help was findable for them :)

Thanks to User:Ricordisamoa who coded it :) Hsarrazin (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: I have updated the description. Feel free to translate it: MediaWiki:Gadget-KeyShortcuts. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

scope of "main subject"

How "main" should the use of the main subject (P921) property be? Should it be restricted to just one or two, for example? I am creating items for a series of historico-biographical articles which have titles like "Social Reformers: John Howard, Elizabeth Fry, William Lloyd Garrison" and each article has a broad topic like "reform" in this example or "history of science" or whatever, with the historical theme being exemplified through discussion of between one and six key persons. Should the exemplar persons be considered "main subjects" even when there are many of them? Surely if there is just one exemplar person, for instance a phase of European political history examined through the life of Klemens von Metternich, they are a main subject. Levana Taylor (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Use as many “main subject” statements as make sense to you. I always use anything specifically mentioned in a title (unless it’s used metaphorically). There was some discussion around multiple “main subjects” last year at Wikidata:Property proposal/subject facet, but that property was not implemented, so main subject is what we have to work with. - PKM (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

VIAF records with multiple WKP entries

Dear friends, this is the second time that I noticed a VIAF record wirh multiple WKP entries.
The first time the additional record was a redirect to the "main" WKP entry.
This time I noticed VIAF:56731778 –– containing both a "main" WKP entry Hafez (Q6240) and an additional one "No label defined" (Q10293519).
It is obvious that the WKP related Wikidata items should be combined.

who can "scan" tte VIAF database for similar cases?
by which procedure the VIAF records will be updated?
where a "log" page will be available in wikidata to reflect the status of the individual cases ("tickets handling")?
other ideas
who can fix this particular case?
people involved: Magnus Manske, Lydia Pintscher, LydiaPintscher, Alkanot4ran, ...

Best regards
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיקע פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndike preferentsn talk contribs 03:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In this particular case, Q10293519 is a Portugues entry that has now been redirected to the other. I've merged the item. Circeus (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
thanks a lot Circeus!
no bias — קיין אומוויסנדיקע פּרעפֿערענצן — keyn umvisndike preferentsn talk contribs 17:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-notifying users when their username is added to a wikidata item

Are users currently notified when Wikimedia username (P4174) is added to a wikidata item? If not, it would be good to automatically do so (first so that they can fix if it's incorrect, or add further information if correct). It would also avoid any accidental outing going unnoticed. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No and, if it's done publicly on their page, this might compound the problem. Not sure either what we should do with users who add these (especially those knowing the person doesn't want it to be in Wikidata). One could design a filter that prevents most people but the user to add it. --- Jura 15:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

WD:N and Q68030853


The (currently deleted) item Q68030853 link Jean-Jacques Netter (Q68030698) and Charles Gave (Q2959181). Does it fullfill the criteria « 3. It fulfills a structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful. » in WD:N? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment: I'm not convinced that linking the two items would fulfill any real "need". Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC).
That's why I'm asking ;-) Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Links them how? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Q68030853 founded by (P112) Jean-Jacques Netter (Q68030698) and Q68030853 founded by (P112) Charles Gave (Q2959181). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This is not how we understand "structural need"; this term usually refers to the opposite situation, i.e. the item in question is linked by at least one other item. The item Q68030853 ("Institut des libertés", a think tank) in its most recent form did indeed qualify for deletion. If you happen to have relevant sources or identifiers, we can restore it of course. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This is exactly how I understand "structural need"; we need it to show the (structural) relationship between two entities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Item restored per critera #2: "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity". Feel free to delete it again if there is a consensus. Ayack (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Unknown entries

Hey all. How can i put unknown date entry for a person? Like death date for Razzuq Faraj Razzuq (Q60913968)? there is lack of info for his death date. --Ruwaym (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Born in 1919, maybe he is still alive? Ghouston (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Ghouston I found a relative of him in Facebook, hope he respond me. --Ruwaym (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the usage instruction for the two could be more clear to get people to understand it.
You only put in an unknown death date if you have a source that tells you the person is dead but not when the person is dead. Otherwise you simply leave it unfilled. Otherwise, see the guidance of unknown values on ChristianKl❫ 10:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I think for someone born more than 120 years ago, it would be reasonable to set the date of death to unknown value, with derived from (P5191) date of birth (Q2389905). Ghouston (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
(tangential) From the description of derived from (P5191) this is not the intended usage. OTOH if that is not frowned upon I'll happily use it for references instead of based on heuristic (P887). --SCIdude (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was the wrong property, I was thinking of inferred from (P3452). based on heuristic (P887) could be used too, although I think you'd have to create an item for the "heuristic". Ghouston (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Rather than adding P570, you could add floruit (P1317) with the last known date. Please avoid adding P570 unless you are sure about it. We already had problems with people marked as dead by BdF and a person complaining as we copied their info. --- Jura 11:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Help re architect

One source for Old Warren County Courthouse (Q14693338) says "It should be noted that although William Weldon is listed as the architect in some sources, the museum itself has no precise record of this attribution. There is even a theory—again without documentation—that the courthouse was designed 'by a slave named Jackson.'" How should I express the concept that the courthouse may have been designed by a slave named Jackson? I'm not sure about creating an item for a person who may or may not have existed. Right now I have architect (P84) = enslaved person (Q12773225), with qualifiers stated as (P1932) = Jackson and sourcing circumstances (P1480) = possibly (Q30230067). Other thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Since the slave architect is just a theory, wouldn't it be better to set the architect to "unknown", maybe with a link to the source that describes the uncertainties? Moebeus (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
You could also add “statement is disputed by” to the attribution to Weldon, and include the quote about Jackson in the reference. - PKM (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

year precision for far future dates

On the items Bad Wolf (Q2497649) and The Parting of the Ways (Q2668975), I've tried to enter a date depicted (P2913) statement with the year 200,100 as its value (as the story takes place in that exact year in the far future). But for some reason, the value is saved with a century precision, even through I've manually switched to a year precision before saving. Testing around, it seems everything up to the year 4000 works as usual, e.g. the years 2400, 3000, 3550, etc. all automatically have the year precision and don't change when saved. After that, e.g. the years 4010, 4500, 5000 automatically switch to the less precide decade or century precisions and changing them to year precision doesn't work. Is this working as intended (for whatever reason) or a bug? --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Odd. I entered 1.1.200100 then switched from day to year precision: that worked. --- Jura 09:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, right. I did that a while back on The Long Game (Q958270) by using +200000-06-00 and switching to year precision instead of just +200000-00-00 (which originally gave a precision of 100000 years). Still not sure why it's necessariy. --Kam Solusar (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Hiero syntax


If you are interested in WikiHiero syntax (<hiero></hiero>), you might want to look into Wikidata:Property proposal/name in hiero markup. --- Jura 09:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

P373 etc. links to disambiguation pages or redirects

The values of Commons category (P373), Commons gallery (P935), and Commons maps category (P3722) often do not link to a Commons page or Commons category but to disambiguation pages or redirects at Commons. Cause is surely the page/category move at Commons itself made after the creation of a Wikidata dataset without sending a notification to Wikidata. I think of two solutions of this problem. Of course, Wikimedia Commons should have a bot to make the necessary changes on other Wikis, Wikidata included, similar to changes of image name moves. The second solution is to start a bot at Wikidata to substitute redirects to the page/category itself and to mark values to disambiguation pages.

This problem more seldomly occurs in the commons sitelink in the "other website" section, too. Trying the replacement of this value can produce a new error because the correct value is used in another (category) dataset. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


What is the procedure for moving a misplaced Category? The greek wiktionary 'Surnames' Κατηγορία:Επώνυμα is misplaced at Category:Names (Q5642451).

which practically is identical to Category:Surnames by language (Q9819961). Futhermore, why can't I place the greek category to BOTH these Categories? It fits to both. But if not possible, I need to move it at Category:Surnames (Q7045213). Thank you -sorry that I am not familiar with wikidata-. Sarri.greek (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

How many Wikipedia/Wikimedia entities lack Wikidata items?

Is there a way to visualize the Wikipedia articles (in any language) or Commons categories/galleries that don't have a corresponding Wikidata item? I know that bots generally create a Wikidata item within a few hours to days after a Wikipedia article is created (at least in English), but the lag can be up to a week or more, and who knows how many "orphan" entities there are. Are there tools to identify these and create needed items? Conversely, a way to find Wikipedia redirects that correspond to existing Wikidata items would be helpful (e.g. a musician with a Wikidata item is redirected to her band's article on Wikipedia due to notability or other reasons). I'm not a computer programmer, so advice along the lines of "design a script to do x y and z" is unhelpful. Thanks, -Animalparty (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

For example, see:

M2k~dewiki Thank you! This is very helpful. -Animalparty (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheap tickets

New field of activity for Wikidata? Wikidata:Property proposal/Ticket Liquidator artist ID, etc. --- Jura 18:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Add statement: phylogeny

As a phylogeneticist, I work a lot with phylogenies. I would enjoy being able to download a phylogeny of a certain genus/family/order/etc. in a raw format.

I think Wikidata is the best place to add these. Have I concluded this correctly?

  • If no, could you redirect me to a the proper Wiki project?
  • If yes, there's another question below

To avoid doing original research, I can imagine that Wikidata decides to only host published phylogenies. Do I guess right here?

  • If yes, there is a problem: the raw data and calculation of the phylogeny may already be lost, therefore on may have to result to calculate the phylogeny from afresh
  • If no, there is a problem: from one same input, there are many ways to construct a phylogeny from it. Therefore, there are more than one answers possible. Supplying a script how to create a phylogeny from an input, however, does result in reproducible answers. Would that fit Wikidata?

I hope Wikidata is the place where once I can easily obtain phylogenies from, even though there are some problems due to the nature of constructing these.

Looking forward to your reaction, Richel J.C. Bilderbeek  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bilderbikkel (talk • contribs) at 09:31, 1 October 2019‎ (UTC).

  • Wikidata isn't a place that hosts raw data. We rather host items for individual species/genus/family/order's and relationships between items. Primates (Q7380) would be an item for the order of the primates and Haplorrhini (Q82261) the item for the suborder haplorrhini which has a "parent taxon" relationship with the former. In this case the claim has two high authority sources. In other cases relationships might be sourced less well.
Currently, I don't think there's a Wikiproject that hosts raw datasets of the kind you are thinking about. ChristianKl❫ 12:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bilderbikkel Additionally, phylogenies are not static things one can download or generate from hierarchical relationships. Each one is inferred by different lines of evidence and analyses (anatomy, mitochondrial genes, nuclear genes, etc), and any single clade may have numerous alternative and contradictory phylogenies. We don't host the intricate, taxon-specific character matrices required for phylogenetic inference. There are better repositories for genetic sequence data, i.e. GenBank. -Animalparty (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bilderbikkel Here is an example of tree for ape ( ). SPARQL soruce code for that is here [1]. After click the excute button  , you can download the data. See download help. There is another example at Twitter [2]. Currently Wikidata can not provide one-coherent phylogenetic tree, but a patchwork-tree based on many edits from various contributors. --Was a bee (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Unable to edit Q6308220

Category:Kingdom of Hungary (Q6308220) just had a merger by &beer&love (talkcontribslogs), but now when I try to edit it, I get the error "Could not save due to an error." due to several conflicting sitelinks. It's part of a few such mergers that I've spotted just now, since en:Category:Kingdom of Hungary and commons:Category:Kingdom of Hungary have become unlinked from Wikidata even though the sitelinks still exist. Making an edit to the Wikidata item resolved the other cases, but that's not possible here. Does anyone have an idea of what's happening, or is this something for phabricator? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, this seems to have spontaneously resolved itself. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

A belated happy birthday to Wikidata:Property proposal/(de)evolution method, which is now one year and two days old. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Improved edit summaries for edits coming from wbeditentity API

Hello all,

We are about to make some changes to edit summaries that appear when an edit is made using wbeditentity API, which includes for example editing terms (labels, descriptions, aliases) from the new mobile termbox. The summary messages currently contain “Changed an Item” as a comment. The new summaries will include the message "Changed label, description and/or aliases in # languages", where # is the count of distinct languages that terms in them have been affected.

This change will be deployed on Wednesday, October 2nd, and the new edit summaries will start changing from that point. The old edit summaries will not be changed. More improvements will follow in the future (for example, more details regarding the terms that have been changed and the languages).

You can see more details in this ticket. If you encounter any issues, please let me know. Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Pintoch, since I think this will affect the “labels”/“tags” in the edit groups tool. (This should make it possible to classify edit groups that use wbeditentity rather than other APIs more accurately, but I’m not sure if the tool needs to be updated to take advantage of that.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the ping, I will update EditGroups accordingly. I also replied on the wikidata-tech mailing list about this. (summary: this is fantastic news and I wonder if it was considered to reuse summaries from atomic API actions in wbeditentity, if they are applicable. That would avoid having to do that client-side, as is currently done in Wikidata-Toolkit: − Pintoch (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
The new edit summaries are now supported: (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Clean up country / country of citizenship

A significant number of items for humans use country (P17). I think we should look for ways to clean this up. An obvious initial step would be automatically removing P17 from all entities that are instances of human (Q5), have country of citizenship (P27) defined and its value is the same as country (P17) (example query). What do you think? --MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • That seems harmless, as a first step. - Jmabel (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @MarioGom: Sounds good! --Marsupium (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend also making sure that the item doesn't also have another P31 before removing P17. Some items might be the result of incorrect mergers between human and non-human items, or otherwise have ambiguous referents. --Yair rand (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

property for Number of services produced ?

I try to find which property I may use to represent the "production of services" (no goods) by period of time. It could be applicable to a company (call center services) or a venue (airport), etc. Now, we have production rate (P2197) which it seems limited to material goods. I also tried to select collection or exhibition size (P1436) or the most generic quantity (P1114) but reflect "things subject has" or a "number of parts" of the subject, but I look for "things subject produce". Some examples of what I want to show are: Airport number of operations (by year, for instance), number of loaned book in a library, number of information services in a call center, etc.. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

named as (P1810) vs. stated as (P1932)

How do i know what which one to use? --Trade (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Use "named as" to record how the subject was named in a database or reference. Use "stated as" to record how the object (value) was stated in a database or reference. - PKM (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I know I used "named as" where I should have used "stated as" quite a few times -- is there a way I can search to find all my edits that contain "named as"? Never mind, I figured that out, but now I'm running into 2 different problems. Levana Taylor (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Use of "author name string" with uninformative names and unknown identities

"Stated as" isn't considered a valid qualifier for author name string (P2093). So what do you do when you know the author of an article, they're credited differently in the magazine, and they have no item? I don't necessarily want to create an item for every single author for reasons discussed in this wikisource conversation.Levana Taylor (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I think author name string (P2093) is intended to already contain the value that's listed in the database. If there's "J. Doe" then you say author name string (P2093) "J. Doe". Do you think there are cases where you know that "J. Doe" is actually named "J. Doe" but there's still not enough information to create an item for her? ChristianKl❫ 10:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm dealing with articles in Once a Week magazine (1860s), in which many of the articles are signed with initials or pseudonyms or unsigned. Luckily, though, an account book survives with records of payments to contributors which allows identifying quite a few contributors (info is in the Curran Index. Not all can be identified because some articles don't have a payment recorded or note an uninformative name like "E. Smith" or "Miss Brown." So we've got multiple names and identities to record: the signature in the magazine (sometimes null), the contributor's real name as recorded in the account book (sometimes null), and their full name allowing creation of an item. If their full identity is unknown, practice here is to use "author name string." So there are two problems: the fact that there are two "stated as" values to record, one in the account book and one in the magazine; and the fact that author name string doesn't currently allow a stated as qualifier. Levana Taylor (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
author name string (P2093) shouldn't have it as it's meant to be a temporary solution until one adds author (P50) possibly with stated as (P1932) as qualifier. --- Jura 11:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I dunno about temporary, the identity could be forever unknown. Levana Taylor (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
An author identified with an author name string isn't unknown .. it's just that for some reason we didn't make an item for them. --- Jura 11:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The tip text for the "author" property says "use 'author name string' if Wikidata item is unknown." Am I misinterpreting that? I suppose "is unknown" could be meant as saying "you think there is a Wikidata item but you don't know what it is," in which case you would use unknown value for "author" if the person is completely unknown. Levana Taylor (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The main use of the property is to enable creation of items about papers or for references without having to go through creating items for authors. --- Jura 14:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Or with named as (P1810), which seems more precise. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC).
I don't really get why that was added as qualifier. I think it's an error. It leads to stuff like [3] --- Jura 18:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
According to ((ping|PKM}} in the section just above this, it would indeed be incorrect to use "named as" with author name string. Levana Taylor (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course author name string (P2093) shouldn't have a "stated as" as a qualified, it literally takes the author (P50) and "stated as" itself and combines them into a single text-string type property. By and large, it's intended to ease imports (and in particular automated imports) of sources by avoiding automatic creation of hundreds of author items that would them have to be manually merged or disambiguated. The end goal is to have a proper author (P50) later on. Of course it's also useful where the full author cannot be determined in any way. Circeus (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Some concrete examples will be useful.

  1. The Grass of the Field (Q69649876) is by Margaret Plues (Q21606756), recorded in the accounts as "Miss Plues," and unsigned.
  2. John Brown at Woolwich (Q69649269) is by Robert Barlow McCrea (Q62475737), not recorded in the accounts, and signed "R. B. M."
  3. How an Advertisement Got a Wife (Q69650426) is by ??, in the accounts as "Mrs. Davis," and signed "M. R. J."
  4. A Ramble in the Forest of Dean (Q69649595) is by ??, not in the accounts, and signed "B."
  5. My Uncle's Handbook (Q69649453) is by ??, not in the accounts, and unsigned.

Levana Taylor (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Here is one for "B.": Q69659100. Maybe with the general information about the periodical it can be determined who uses "B." as signature. --- Jura 14:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
OK then, what do you when you have zero of anything to refer to the author by, as in my last example? "author unknown value stated as no value" or what? Levana Taylor (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

How to indicate unsigned

Is the right way to indicate an unsigned article "stated as no value"? Levana Taylor (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a Uniform Resource Name (Q76497) and/or Uniform Resource Identifier (Q61694) property (similar to official website (P856) / URL (P2699)) ?

I think it would be good to have. I can recall wanting it before but I can't exactly remember why now. I will try think of some examples and add them. Maybe most generic would be to just have "Official URI" property and then we can add any valid URI? Probably it should allow multiple values. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


T.seppelt (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC) GerardM (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Jneubert (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Framawiki (please notify !) (talk) Sic19 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Wikidelo (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC) PKM (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Eihel (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC) NAH Iwan.Aucamp Epìdosis

  Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control DarTar (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Maxlath (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Jumtist (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC) JakobVoss (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) PKM (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Ivanhercaz   (Talk) 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Epìdosis 11:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Tris T7 TT me

  Notified participants of WikiProject Wikipedia Sources

Andheb (talk) ElanHR (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Jneubert (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject DatasetsEihel (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you give a few samples? Would this be for properties or items? To duplicate URLs or other identifiers? --- Jura 11:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A URI can be a URL or an URN (as well as other usage schemes - IETF Definition). For URN, there are less than 100 namespaces. They are registered by IANA here. Unless I'm wrong, some will be able to serve on WD and some will not. An example of a URN: urn:isan:0000-0002-E60F-0000-0-0000-0000-3 for The Intouchables (Q595). The ISAN identifier on Qs is already defined by ISAN (P3212). This is the same for many IANA namespaces (NID of URN): ISBN, ISSN, etc. There are Properties for ISBN, ISSN, etc. —Eihel (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe we could create a URN formatter property (with values like "urn:isan:$1" for the sample given). Not sure if storing values like "urn:isan:0000-0002-E60F-0000-0-0000-0000-3" would be a good idea. This although we already have similar duplication with DOIs for some properties. --- Jura 14:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Hello @Jura1, Iwan.Aucamp:, I was also waiting for a response from the proposer on your request, because I do not understand his exact request. When he writes "I can not exactly remember why now", I am perplexed. My comment is only to make other contributors think about the usefulness. There is a permanent resource of URIs and URNs: ​​if a URL is not permanent, an organization's registration to one of these concepts makes a resource permanent. Just knowing that ISBNs or ISANs are permanent does not advance us. These 2 properties (if they exist) should be of string type as proposed by IETF (so not as you propose: urn:$1). For example, I gave an ISAN URN, but do not create a property by namespace (one for ISAN, then one for ISBN, then one for ISSN, and then ...). An answer to your question will tell me what values ​​a URI property can take. But after all that I wrote, I will wait for a response from the proposer and other opinions, but I feel redundant information unnecessary.I am sure that proposals have already been made. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Wikidata:Property proposal/urn formatter. --- Jura 08:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose unless the proposed can give some useful examples --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for the feedback. I think you make a very good @Eihel: point and in general I would agree that it would be better to have rather have specific identifiers like ISSN and ISBN instead of the URN equivalent and in such cases a URN formatter property would be better. I think the cases that I wanted were IETF URNs:


But there are similar cases





I think though following from what @Eihel: said these cases may be better handled by specific properties (i.e. RfC ID (P892) with URN Formatter). There may be cases where this does not quite work that like tag URIs and Federated Content URNs but I think for the time being URN Formatter may be the best option. I will add some details there and see if we can get that property proposal accepted. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 07:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we could already do something clean before making a proposal (hence my vote against the proposal). You are not in a hurry. Do not put in production a wobbly Property, but rather something accomplished. URN is a very specific URI compared to a URL: it does not designate a location, it is unique and… soon more —Eihel (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Graphing relationships

Do we have a tool (or a query) to show the shortest graph of connections beteen two arbitrary items, in a "six degrees of separation" manner? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • If not, the algorithm would presumably be to start from one, list out all of its connections, then recursively do the same for each of those until you encounter the other item. Possibly might optimize average case (but not worst case) starting from both ends. Could get pretty big pretty fast if they have a lot of connections but aren't close to one another. - Jmabel (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WDQ has a graph view and shortest path queries (using a Blazegraph specific extension). Maybe post a more specific case on the "queries wanted" page --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Property for oral history / voice interview of a subject ?

Do we have a property for oral interview of a subject, describing their life (or some part of it) in their own voice?

It struck me that this would be quite an interesting thing to note, for items about people.

eg Ian Charles Scott (Q21454862) -> ; or, perhaps, any episode of Desert Island Discs (Q1200587).

I suppose one could use described by source (P1343), marking the project as an oral history project with instance of (P31) an oral history (Q558929), and then URL (P2699) for the URL of the interview. Setting object has role (P3831) = "oral history interview" could help systematically identify such sources with queries.

What do people think? If were to start systematically trying to identify and state the coverage of oral history projects around the world, how might we model the data? Jheald (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

described at URL (P973)? audio (P51)?, spoken text audio (P989)? Circeus (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
None of that, actually. audio recording of the subject's spoken voice (P990) is the one. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Not for an intervew. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I would create an item for the interview, and link that item to the subject using main subject (P921) (or some more precise property, did not look much into it) Jean-Fred (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Are there any property that i can use to show that a creative work have been deemed non-canon by the creators? --Trade (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Canon is with respect to a specific "creative universe" I would assume here? So I think the way to do this would be to have a statement part of (P361) "item for creative universe" with qualifier statement disputed by (P1310) the creator who states otherwise, and support that by a reference. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing double entities/tags from dutch municipalities

Is it possible to make a query that deletes the dutch municipality tag (Q2039348) from entitites that don't have a start (P580) or/and end time date set (P582)? And if yes, how would such a query look? if not, what's the best way to tackle this problem (clicking 2000 times is not really an option)? Antoni1626 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the query for the municipalities with a start date set:

SELECT ?municipalityLabel ?municipality ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode WHERE {

SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348;
  pq:P580 ?begindatum;

optional { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum } optional { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. } }

Query for municipalities without start and end date:

SELECT ?municipalityLabel ?municipality ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode WHERE {

SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348;

minus {?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum;} minus {?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum } optional { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. } }

Here is an example: (place), no start or end date, but the other entity (municipality) has the correct dates Antoni1626 (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

A query is a query, you cannot change the database with it. I use sed (Q305876) or, in more complicated cases, Python to generate QS from a query's CSV or TSV. --SCIdude (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, please don't post what is essentially the same question to two forums [4]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong Protests

2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (Q64509602) is a complex, sensitive, and poorly sourced item. At least 3 points that would need attention:

  1. label: it was initially called "protests against the extradition bill" or something like that. As the protests have outlived the extradition bill, most Wikipedias have renamed their article but not all labels have been changed accordingly.
  2. Causes. The item has has cause (P828)->causes of the 2019 Hong Kong protests (Q67184561) but causes of the 2019 Hong Kong protests (Q67184561) is virtually empty. Beside, we have several properties that express causation: has cause (P828), has immediate cause (P1478) and has contributing factor (P1479). I am not sure that everything should be lumped together in causes of the 2019 Hong Kong protests (Q67184561).
  3. number of injured (P1339), number of deaths (P1120).
  • The demonstration are not over, so date qualifiers are important. Which one should it be, latest date (P1326) ?
  • Can we use qualifiers to explain what exactly is included ? Who is counted as injured is not necessarily clear. Number of deaths seems clearer, but apparently all deaths are demonstrator's suicides and I feel that it should somehow be mentionned. -Zolo (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging of fatigue (Q15729017) with fatigue (Q9690)

I want to merge fatigue (Q15729017) with fatigue (Q9690). I tried once but there was some opposition so I would like to clear up what people expect be done before the merge. Before I started editing for some languages fatigue (Q9690) was linking to "work fatigue" and for those languages fatigue (Q15729017) was linking to fatigue in general as opposed to work specific fatigue. I don't think either item is appropriate to be used for work specific fatigue and would rather make a new item for that. @Infovarius:. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's more complicated then that. DeWiki has items for both and for Fatigue-Syndrom (Q2713697) and the difference is not about whether or not something is work specific fatigue.
We might rename fatigue (Q9690) into "Malaise and fatigue" to make it more clear that the item is about the clinical symptom.
If there are other Wikis that do have an article about work fatigue, feel free to create a new item for that. ChristianKl❫ 07:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: If fatigue (Q9690) is the symptom then is fatigue (Q15729017) more general/colloquial tiredness/fatigue? It definitely should be clearer what should link where - and fatigue (Q15729017) should not be marked as said to be the same as fatigue (Q9690) and the talk page should maybe explain how they are different. @Infovarius: Maybe you can weigh in here given you understand Russian and the two items at least have different Russian labels? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's at least how dewiki sees the difference between the two. I agree that it can make sense to have better descriptions and maybe an explanation on the talk page. "said to be the same" however does seem appropriate to me and gets frequently used for cases like that where the meaning is very similar. ChristianKl❫ 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
If this is the case does fatigue (Q15729017) subclass of (P279) fatigue (Q9690) make sense ? It seems like the more general and colloquial concept of fatigue should not be a ssubclass of (P279) the specific symptom. If any subclass relation makes sense to me it seems it would be fatigue (Q9690) subclass of (P279) fatigue (Q15729017) though I'm not sure if there should be subclass relation between them either way. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Doc James
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Projekt ANA
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Chris Mungall
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Sami Mlouhi
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
Shani Evenstein
ZI Jony
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine


Below is a list of changes we could make. Please indicate support with   Support/  Oppose/  Neutral or add additional proposals. I will add more later. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support Iwan.Aucamp (talk)
  Support to all your ideas. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Strange book entries

Is it possible to tidy up the weird data entry seen here and track down where that all came from (there may be more, I found these on a search for 'University of Minnesota Press'):

It looks like someone did a bad batch of data entry and copied a university press catalog without pulling the data apart and entering it properly. Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I checked a few; if my sample is a good one they seem to be NOT book entries, but the titles of review articles written about the books. As such we generally use the article title as the label, though maybe a more descriptive label like ("Review of xxxx") would be better, and then move the exact title to the value of a statement. These could probably be easily fixed up with a Quickstatements batch if there's a consensus to make that change. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I get it now. Yes, this is the weird way some book reviews are titled, putting all the pricing information in the article title. May not be much we can do about that. It does look strange though. Carcharoth (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Richard Nevell: it seems you created at least some of the items in question. ChristianKl❫ 19:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    • They are indeed reviews. The naming is a bit odd, but does at least reflect how the book reviews are titled. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
      • It seems to me very unlikely that the title of those review includes a price or it's ISBN. ChristianKl❫ 07:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

These are reviews. Titles seem correct. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC).

  • It's useful to have items for individual books reviews, even if they occur in part of a larger section. We have a property review of (P6977) to connect them to the work they are reviewing.
As for the labels, it's perhaps worth remembering that there's no requirement for the label to match the full title of the article. The title as given can (and should) be recorded in a title (P1476) statement. But, as Jura proposes, as for the labels, it may make a lot of sense to normalise these into a form that is likely to be more convenient, more reusable, and more meaningful as a search result. Jheald (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe shortening the labels of the long list given initially to "review of"+title of book would do. --- Jura 11:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Interesting... What do others think? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC).
I’d love to have a standard for shortening labels of book reviews. They drive me nuts. - PKM (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
☺ I left a note about the proposal on Help_talk:Label#Review_of. --- Jura 09:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  Support shortening to "Review of (original title)"; descriptions will need to be modified to disambiguate when there are multiple such reviews. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Q19188 vs. Q7262427

Well, for several years I really doubt if there are differents between both items, to indicate that why Wikidata should have separated items for both things. If Mainland China (Q19188) already doesn't include Hong Kong (Q8646)+Macau (Q14773), then why there's benefits to have Mainland China (Q7262427) and their linked articles? What's the actual relation between both items? 1. Q19188 never includes HK+MO, so Q7262427 has two Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) articles, so we should consider merging zh:中国内地 and zh-yue:中國內地 back to Q19188 articles (zh:中国大陆 and zh-yue:中國大陸); 2. Q19188 never includes HK+MO, but there are reasons to hold up mergings, so Q7262427 is a Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) of Q19188; 3. Q19188 should (or even must likely) include HK+MO, but Q7262427 should not, so Mainland China (Q7262427) part of (P361) Mainland China (Q19188) (and do so for HK+MO), and then add reverse statements (i.e. Mainland China (Q19188) has part (P527) Mainland China (Q7262427), and Q8646+Q14773 should also be P527 values); 4. both Q19188 and Q7262427 may or may not include HK+MO, so keep the de facto said to be the same as (P460) linking each other. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Q7262427 is a definition in chinese law. Why are you asking here anyway? This is an issue that is strictly for zh:wp to decide. Circeus (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: Actually, under PRC's law, "中国大陆" can include HK+MO, but under Taiwanese law, "中國大陸" can't. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jyxyl9, Baomi, SC96: Wondering if they can tell us the differents. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Both "中国大陆" and "中国内地" are translated to "Chinese mainland" by Chinese goverment, they referred to a same geographical scope, both can't include HK+MO. like one's "father" is the "husband" of his mother, but the "son" of his grandpa. "Chinese mainland" or "Mainland China" should be called as "中国内地" when it was mentioned with HK+MO in Chinese, but as "中国大陆" when with Taiwan.--Baomi (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #385


Why MWNF ID (P7375) is not listed among external identifiers? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Because the data type is URL, and unfortunately nobody who participated in the discussion objected to the proposal of creating the property that way. ChristianKl❫ 08:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Apparently not, given that two of the examples are:

note the different sub-domains: "islamicart" vs. "sharinghistory". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Country property for paintings/monuments

The Immaculate Conception (Q29117926) is a Spanish painting that resided in Spain for the first ~200 years of its existence and now resides in a church in France, where it is a designated historical monument. I took off the country (P17) property because I wasn't sure that France (the old value) was appropriate, though I added location (P276) = Église Saint-Gervais-Saint-Protais de Langon (Q3581683). (I also added location of final assembly (P1071) = Madrid.) heritage designation (P1435) wants me to add country (P17), and Palissy ID (P481) is complaining that it should be country (P17) = France. What is the best way to handle this? Is there an established way to treat paintings? I didn't see anything definite at the visual arts project. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple of options I can think of: 1) use country (P17) = France qualified with a start date and country of origin (P495) = Spain. 2) Use country (P17) = France and country (P17) = Spain with start and end dates, and set the “Spain” value as deprecated. I suppose you could even do both of these. Personally, I like the first option. IMHO, country (P17) should always be the country where the item is presently located. - PKM (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, User:PKM. It is unknown how and when exactly it got to the French church; a priest discovered it in the sacristy in 1965 and it apparently presumably had been there for some time. But all we know is that it was definitely in Spain in 1837 and was definitely in the French church in 1965. What kind of qualifier(s) would I use to model this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
point in time (P585) = 1837 and 1965, respectively, with citations to the references that state this (and I'd add a quote from your source if it's available). - PKM (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I just did something slightly different before you responded... Let me know if you have any objections! Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1, PKM: Deprecated rank must only be "used for statements that are known to include errors" (see Help:Ranking). Thus, it is not adequate in this case. (Otherwise, all seems OK) Ayack (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ayack: Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

determination method (P459) qualifier for number of words (P6570)

What are the possible values of determination method (P459) when qualifying number of words (P6570)? Levana Taylor (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

  • You can specify the method or tool used. --- Jura 12:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
right, but I can't find the list of methods and tools, so that was my questioin. Levana Taylor (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Last time I used word count in Libre Office. --- Jura 13:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
what is the item for "word count in Libre Office"? there is none by that exact name. My point is that I can't find a valid value to enter into the statement. Levana Taylor (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What method did you use? --- Jura 13:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
TextFX for Notepad++, which (by their own say-so) uses the same word segmentation rules as Microsoft Word. Levana Taylor (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd create an item for TextFX. Obviously, creating an item about that actual segmentation method used would be better, but I couldn't find a good description for LibreOffice Writer's either. --- Jura 13:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, here counted by TextFX (Q70092255). That should work. Levana Taylor (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice. This ensures that it can be reproduced. --- Jura 14:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Company items

user:Freebald has, since June, created thousands (over 28K, it seems) of items about apparently non-notable companies, with no independent identifiers, no links from other items, and no citations. Prior to realising this, I just sent a few (Q66809281, ‎Q66809316, ‎Q66809326, ‎Q66809328), which serve as examples, to requests for deletion, on the grounds of non-notability. Having then noticed the scale of the issue, I visited their talk page, where I see that User:ArthurPSmith asked them on 4 September to give an explanation; none has been forthcoming. Do we want these items? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we want those items in their current form:
  • Due to the systematic lack of sources, other users have no chance to work with them, or to verify the information provided. This also means that those items are not going to be updated no matter what is going to happen with those companies.
  • We do not know where the extensive dataset comes from. Might be a source with an incompatible license…?!
  • In principle, I do not like situations where a new user shows up, dumps a larger amount of content with questionable provenance while ignoring all our standards, and then disappears again. This seriously undermines our position about entity notability, which is of outstanding importance for this project.
Yes, I think we should delete the items, but I would love to see what others think. Btw., we are talking about ~17400 newly created items in total; the user has also made ~11000 edits to existing items (not sure whether created by themselves earlier). —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Some more thoughts, without changing my position:
  • It appears that all the imported data was taken from, although Crunchbase organization ID (P2088) has not been added to any of the items by User:Freebald. Crunchbase does not permit this to my understanding (read their ToS…).
  • Some of the data seems to be wrong due to the way how the mapping was done. Companies which are headquartered in Phoenix (Q16556) according to Crunchbase use Firefox (Q698) as value for headquarters location (P159). There are some other similar mistakes.
  • There are very few sitelinks meanwhile connected to the ~17400 items, very few items have backlinks meanwhile, and very few items have received follow-up edits by other users (order of 10 each). This should be respected in case we delete the items.
MisterSynergy (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that merely being in Crunchbase confers notability. I've added a statement to the ID property to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree, I do not think so as well. I wanted to highlight that this seems to be an import which is legally problematic due to the lack of a compatible licence on the (suspected) data source side. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Andy/MisterSynergy .. --- Jura 09:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think copyright is an issue in this case. The data themselves seems to be pure facts that are not copyrightable (i.e. can not be stated in alternative ways; we don't honor database right here). Although I don't support the import; Crunchbase is a user-generated database and anyone can add entries to it (even for advertising purpose).--GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I was anticipating this user would continue to edit, as they appeared to have done some useful edits to existing items. However, the lack of response or any action at all for over a month suggests this was some sort of one-time effort that will not be followed up on. We might give it a little more time, but I'm inclined to just recommend deleting all the items created by this user that have not received any edits or links from anybody else in this time. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we need a separate deletion disucsion, or can an admin act on the above? And can someone make a list of the relevant items that have been edited by others? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I will be mass-deleting all their creations now.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
No, it is more complicated, their creations are not in recent changes. Could somebody easily make a list?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
quarry:query/39430 (select one of the download options). Mind that it *does* include items with sitelinks and/or backlinks, or with edits by other users. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The editgroups tool can also be used to batch-delete the items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, this is very useful. They created 17K items, and, I am afraid, we just need to delete all of them, even if a small percentage have been edited by others or have backlinks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Let me just try to figure out for some minutes the ones with backlinks and sitelinks. Should be possible with the query service… —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid in the meanwhile I already deleted several hundred items (and my sampling did not give any sitelinks or backlinks), but I aborted the deletion right now. I will see tomorrow what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)




As this is really not much, I suggest to delete all items and to restore the ones with backlinks or sitelinks in this list. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe I deleted whatever could have been automatically deleted, the earliest 2000 items still need to be deleted manually. I will now restore whatever needs to be restored.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


Private First Class (Q19758545) and private first class (Q2352637)? Or at least they need to be better differentiated, we have to decide if the title is equivalent across different country's military or of the Asian version just has a poor English translation. --RAN (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The only sitelink specifically mentioning it as Chinese rank is the ruwiki. Before merging here it has to be redirected anyway. --SCIdude (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure if @Yevrowl, MaksOttoVonStirlitz, Михеев Денис, Raye Penber, Nicolay Sidorov:@Angra Mainyu, АлександрВв: can explain differents or not, or can nominate merging or not. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please copmlete the merge of Q19392492 and Q229583? Thank you. -- 00:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could merge Q12002575 and Q17521285. Fraternal thanks -- 09:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Do we have help pages that tell people MediaWiki basics like how to sign talk page posts?

I'm looking for something more Wikidata-centric than this

We have lots of help pages under WD:Help but none of them seem to explain some of the Wikidata basics that we owe to MediaWiki. They might be taken for granted for people who come here from other Wikimedia sites, but that's only a subset of those who dip their toes into Wikidata waters. So I am wondering whether we have something simple to point people to in order to explain, for instance, how to sign posts on pages like this or on talk page. Thanks for any pointers, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have such help pages. More than MediaWiki basics, we have help pages about the particular use of Wikidata, which uses the Wikibase software (along with MediaWiki). And because this is a storage wiki, most of users come from other Wikimedia projects, therefore it's logic to assume that they already know the understanding of wikis. However, implementing the kind of help pages you point could benefit some users as well. Esteban16 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is more then just a storage Wiki for Wikipedia. It has also audiences like GLAM that might not be used to Wiki editing. It would be interesting to have actual numbers about what percentage of Wikidata users has no edits in other projects. ChristianKl❫ 10:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Whitelisting a regex locally

Here's the discussion in question. Does anyone know how to whitelist the regex on Wikidata locally? --Trade (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Upload dataset


I am writing again, because I didn't get any answer about: How can I upload a dataset of 7 million of triples to Wikidata?.

JLuzc (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@JLuzc: You most certainly got at least one answer the last time you asked, as well as some questions and concerns. @GZWDer, ChristianKl, Kpjas, Iwan.Aucamp: as those who opined before. Mahir256 (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see the answers until now, because I didn't get any notice to my inbox. @GZWDer, ChristianKl, Kpjas, Iwan.Aucamp:. I know Wikidata isn't a triples database, but I think it will very helpful to have relations between two existing items. I have relations like place of birth, member of sport team, etc. I do not have specific references of each fact, I extracted this information from Wikipedia.

The dataset consists on about 8 million triples with 70% precision (70% probability of being correct), that means they need to be validated, and I don't understand: how can use a bot for that; I have to create a new one?, there is some information about how to connect the bot to Wikidata?.

  • @JLuzc: If you extracted information from Wikipedia, you should know which Wikipedia page is contains the information and link via Wikimedia import URL (P4656). If your program considers particular sentences to be responsible for the information using quote (P1683) in the sourcing would make it much easier to verify claims. 70% precision seems to me to be to low even when there's human validation. 90% or 95% would feel more appropriate to me with human validation.
In any cases for items that need human validation of this kind we currently only have the primary sources tool and I don't know why that's broken at the moment @Hjfocs:x is there a chance we get the tool working again?
In the absence of human validation, how many hits do you get if you filter for 99.9% precision? ChristianKl❫ 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChristianKl: Thank you so much!. I don't know how the different tools, for uploading data to Wikidata work, then I am being very honest at saying that my data don't have 100% precision, I don't want to give to much work to Wikidata community, I want to help the community and provide more information to the knowledge base. As you explain, it will more useful to filter data and get a better precision (>90%) first. As you suggest, Should I create a bot to add the references for each fact?. (Could you suggest me a bot that does something similar?) JLuzc (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be worth setting up the model in a way that it outputs for every triple: Confidence, the paragraph or sentence that's the source, link to the Wikipedia page from which the content is taken. Then it would be good if you can tell us for cutoffs of 90%, 95%, 99%, 99.5% and 99.9% how many claims your model makes.
Then we will have to see whether or not someone can get the Primary Sources tool back working. What kind of cutoff is acceptable will depend on that question. The alternative to the primary sources tool is to make a bot request on . In that bot request discussion we might discuss what kind of cutoff is acceptable for a bot that directly enters the claims. ChristianKl❫ 07:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @ChristianKl:, I will write you again when I have the triples with that confidence and references. JLuzc (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's turn this around a little. @JLuzc: you're proposing to add 2.1 million WRONG triples to wikidata. Why would you want to do that? Please don't. I'm sure your tool is very clever, but it clearly is not clever enough to be used in production unless, as ChristianKl alludes, you can constrain the set of triples uploaded to those for which you have a very very high 90s % confidence. Your having a huge dataset is not a sufficient cause for it to be added to wikidata if it introduces such widespread misinformation. It is unethical in the extreme to expect humans to correct 2.1 million mistakes made by your code. It would be arrogant in the extreme to inflict this dataset on wikidata. I hope that is all clear. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you @Tagishsimon:, I am writing in this talk page for getting help and some knowledge about how upload the data, and how the validation is made. I will improve the precision of data and try to upload it with the tools that have been mentioned here. JLuzc (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not understand the concept of a triple, can I see a better example than the Douglas Adams one, or that one explained in step by step of what makes it a triple. --RAN (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
A triple is a subject-predicate-object set, such as wd:Q42 wdt:P31 wd:Q5, or wd:Q42 wdt:P21 wd:Q6581097. Is explained somewhat here - w:en:Semantic triple. One way & another, wikidata is tripes all the way down: Data model --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Given that Wikidata statemnts have elements like rank as well, I think you are still reducing the complexity when you think about Wikidata statements as being triples in the general case. ChristianKl❫ 10:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
The rank element ... all elements - qualifiers, references, normalised values &c ... are triples. I'm not clear what point you're making, ChristianKl. The complexity, or elegance, is in the hierarchy of triples which come together to describe items and their properties, and the data model is the key to understanding the structure of the triple hierachy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear friens, I have a similar situation with a private instance of wikidata, the case is that we want to upload 1,5 millions of dataset, that is moreless 30 millions of triples. We are loading at a rate of 1 data set per second, but that is too slow, because we would be talking about 46 working days to load this dataset. We just created abot, and modified the average time per edit, however nothing changes, and the processing time holds. I thank you in advance any recommendation.

Should ICD-9-CM (P1692) ICPC 2 ID (P667) and Patientplus ID (P1461) not be instance of (P31) Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637)

I think this is what is needed for these to go under Identifiers section on Item pages. If they should be instance of (P31) Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637) - why not? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

T.seppelt (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC) GerardM (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Jneubert (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Framawiki (please notify !) (talk) Sic19 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Wikidelo (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC) salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC) PKM (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC) Ettorerizza (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Fuzheado (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Eihel (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC) NAH Iwan.Aucamp Epìdosis

  Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control

Doc James
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Projekt ANA
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Chris Mungall
Dr. Abhijeet Safai
Sami Mlouhi
Netha Hussain
Abhijeet Safai
Shani Evenstein
ZI Jony
  Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine

@Iwan.Aucamp: Thanks for the suggestion. I've edited the pages for all three properties accordingly. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Daniel Mietchen: Thanks, for some reason they still show under Statements and not Identifiers here premenstrual syndrome (Q220193), is it due to caching or is there something else that mark properties as identifiers? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
They show up there because they are string properties and not external-id properties. ChristianKl❫ 10:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: should they be changed to external-id properties? And if so how do I request it? Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC) might get you started on previous discussions. ChristianKl❫ 09:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Revolutionary item!

I have created Q70209157. Please help me to fill that! --2001:B07:6442:8903:70A1:8A4B:6749:FCB6 14:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

How about adding your definition of long in the description so we have an objective criterium. --RAN (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Added! -- 18:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Now deleted per WD:N, 1.1. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Could be useful... you make me sad... -- 19:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I created a proposal to allow items for special pages like this: . You might read throught the existing discussion and create a new RfC for solving the migration of leftover string properties. ChristianKl❫ 09:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Global Network Initiative

None of the items listed as "part of" Global Network Initiative (Q5570513) (including Facebook and Google) are really part of it. How should the relationship be modelled? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This is a problem with a large amount of "part of" relations. In this case, I suggest to use inverse member of (P463): Global Network Initiative (Q5570513) claims in the member items. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


This is what I found:

Frank Philipp Schlößmann (Frank Philipp Schlößmann (Q1443964)) / German designer of stage and costumes / 12 statements, 2 sitelinks - 11:13, 10 October 2019

Frank Philipp Schlössmann (Q53112459) / 6 statements, 0 sitelinks - 11:13, 10 October 2019

and believe the latter should be just a redirect, or otherwise pointing out that it is the same person. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)--

@Gerda Arendt: if you are sure it's the same person, then you should do the merge yourself. I've put the explanation template on your talk page. Cdlt VIGNERON (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

participant (Q56512863) on music event

It is good to add participant (Q56512863) in musical event items, like Lucilla Minervini (Q41769115) on Zecchino d'Oro 2002 (Q4024054)? --2001:B07:6442:8903:70A1:8A4B:6749:FCB6 13:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

It is good to add participant (Q56512863) in musical event items, like Lucilla Minervini (Q41769115) on Zecchino d'Oro 2002 (Q4024054)? -- 12:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

participant (Q56512863) is an item and not a property that you could add in the way you talk about. ChristianKl❫ 13:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I merged the two similar questions. Maybe performer (P175) fit your purpose, it can be applied to "event" and take "artist". Jagulin (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing the IPs talk about participant (P710) which can indeed be use for these items. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Can a bot add in siblings?

If someone has 11 children with entries in Wikidata someone has to add in the 10 siblings to each record of each child for 100 entries. This could better be handled by a bot that will give fewer errors. Does one exist already?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what the point would be. Queries would be better off just checking the parent-child data directly. --Yair rand (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think most people would be coming to Wikidata through Google or Siri or Alexa, and not running a query using SPARQL. Especially for entries not in English Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Poulpy (talkcontribslogs) used to run such a bot, I believe. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
A bot would be best, but in the short term you can use User:Matěj Suchánek/moveClaim.js to copy claims from one item to another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
If no one has the script available, I would be willing to create and run it, if a request is made via WD:RBOT. I believe there will be more family relations that can be handled the same way (sibblings, parents/children, grand-parents, uncles, etc). I am working out something similar with ranges (follows (P155) and followed by (P156)) in a serie/chain. Edoderoo (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
A bot or single-click user-operated tool would be absolutely wonderful for tasks like this, especially for items like parent-child relationships or spouse (P26) or any statement with symmetric constraint (Q21510862): it would be great if the nagging notice of "Joe Blow should also have the symmetric statement spouse Jane Doe" had a button saying "click here to perform this". This would make huge gains in improving the completeness of data entered largely by humans freely volunteering their time. If I can perform an action in one click instead of 3 or 4, Wikidata is all the better. -Animalparty (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Location of an image of a person from the web NOT stored at Wiki Commons

I thought at one time we had a property that stored the url of an image from the web of a person or thing that is NOT from Wikimedia Commons. Google displays fair use images in Knowledge Graph (KG). Secondly, if we had a property storing the url of an image, is there anything legally that prevents us from displaying it under the doctrine of fair use. English Wikipedia allows one fairuse image per entry, except for living people, at one point they were all purged for living people. We could disable the "save as" function, so it cannot be downloaded directly from here. Twice this week I came across Google (KG) displaying the wrong image of a person. On some Google (KG) boxes I get an edit button where I can suggest a change, other searches, I get no edit box. Does anyone else here get the edit function, or is it a trusted user function some people get, like I had at Google Maps? --RAN (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • The commitment that all data here is CC-0 would presumably preclude including images on a fair-use basis. Remember also that fair use is a concept specific to U.S. copyright law. - Jmabel (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Exactly. There data here is CC-0; That doesn't stop us linking to all manner of legitmately available copyright material, including numerous commercial websites, encyclopedias, directories, etc. So there is no objection to linking to indicate where a in-copyright or even an agency image may be found. What use downstream reusers choose to make of such links is for them to assess, based on the copyright laws local and applicable to their situation. Most EU countries, for example, include an exception allowing copying for personal private research; as well aw further exceptions going beyond that which may be applicable in particular contexts. Jheald (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jheald: Linking from Wikidata is fine, but his question appears to be about displaying the image. "… is there anything legally that prevents us from displaying it under the doctrine of fair use … Twice this week I came across Google (KG) displaying the wrong image of a person." - Jmabel (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
        • If this was going to be done, it would probably be advisable to make a copy of the image in Wikidata, as is done on Wikipedia, to avoid dead links and since a lot of sites won't permit directly embedding an image. However, a proposal to allow fair use material, at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Non-free content, doesn't seem to have generated a lot of enthusiasm. Ghouston (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I suspect you're thinking of Commons compatible image available at URL (P4765) and non-free artwork image URL (P6500). I'm not convinced that they are a good idea, though - they seem like maintenance burdens (e.g., when URLs change) that would be time better spent maintaining images on commons... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

pq: reason for preferred rank

We have reason for deprecation (P2241) as a qualifier enabling us to specify why a statement has been given the deprecated rank. We have no similar property, afaics, to specify why a statement has been given the preferred rank.

Anyone else think that should be rectified? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  Support Seems useful to me because it explicitly marks the motivation for why a statement is preferred, which helps future editors decide whether it's non-destructive to change the preferred statement. --SilentSpike (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
sure. even if the value would be "editorial choice". --- Jura 16:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Yup, that's where I was coming from w.r.t. coordinates. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  Support Makes sense, and maybe it would nudge the football guys to rethink how they're using deprecation on names to make their wikipedia infoboxes look pretty ;-) Moebeus (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#reason_for_preferred_rank. Feel free to improve/correct the property proposal - property proposals not my speciality. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Award rationals

Is "award rationale" meant to be a direct quote from the award giver or is it meant to be as terse as possible? I went for the quote at Francis Sherman Currey (Q5482358). --RAN (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I've assumed that it's supposed to be a quote, although I'm not sure how long a rationale may be before it potentially leads to copyright problems. Ghouston (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Does it make sense to have them when there it can also be the reference ?? GerardM (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata requirements

I just reinstalled my browser and Wikidata doesn't works correctly. There is nothing under statements and If I want to edit labels it redirects me to page with description "You may have reached this special page because the item you tried to edit wasn't fully loaded for label/description edits to work there." Is it problem related to browser cookies, frameworks, Java or Flash Player? Eurohunter (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

That special page is shown to users who have an outdated browser. Any browser older than the ones specified as "modern" on mw:Compatibility#Browser support matrix are considered outdated.--Snaevar (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
When reporting browser-related issues, please state your browser, its version, and your operating system. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Auto-notifying users when their username is added to a wikidata item

  Moved from Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/10: T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for having let this thread time out into the archive. I think that it bears a bit more discussion in case there is an automatable solution. I've been thinking about this from entering Wikimedian in Residence info into wikidata (see table in progress), where the WiRs either associate their real name with their account, or sometimes are known only by their username. Non-consentual outing of users seems like something that users should be informed of by some mechanisms @Jura: Is there a mechanism to email users through the address associated with their account? Perhaps the notifications tab? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I question the notability of these people. Besides that you'll make some people very uncomfortable by violating their privacy or at least making it very easy for others to violate privacy. Multichill (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I see no use for this feature to exist. Unless there is vandalism, you know you are associated with a real world issue, why do you need to know if you get named on it's online item.
And as to Multichill's notability concern, I take a different stance. I think the "questionable notablity people" would be the ones adding their own names to items, they wouldn't be concerned with being notified because they already know (they would want to know when it gets removed). However, there are instances (far and few between), where people do manage their own "press". Not every one is Lady Gaga with a team of publicists. For example, in my family, I have a published educator, published doctor, and a recorded musician. If one of their "works" get added, I would love to help populate information. I search. I follow by adding to my watchlist. I use "what links here". I think "what links here" serves the same purpose without the notification. Quakewoody (talk)
Many of the people on the page headed "Questionable notability Wikimedians" meet our notability criteria easily (disclosure: I am one of them) - and a number of them have been kept by consensus, after deletion proposals. They include winners of significant awards, and authors of academic papers and books cited on Wikipedia and in academia. Labelling people as such is a violation of our BLP policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess I'm coming from the point of view of hoping that such users would be able to then add additional information to the item when notified of its existance. For wikimedians in residence, it' be useful to have info on sex, nationality, profession etc, but that info is often difficult to come by. However the subject may be better placed to add it. E.g. This query is still sparsely populated. T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Merged but not attached

I noticed that recently I merged a couple of items, but the transferred site links did not seem to be attached to wikidata anymore. For example Q9827687 I merged into Category:Social economy (Q7214799), but now oc:Categoria:Economia sociala seems not attached to wikidata anymore. Or Q10767336 I merged into Category:Ditrema (Q9610495) but zh:Category:海鮒屬 does not seem to be attached. Is this to be repaired in some way? Can something be done manually? Does it just need patience? Lymantria (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Just add a sitelink to the WD item to re-attach it. --SCIdude (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it the site links are listed at the wikidata item, but when you visit them, there is no sign of a wikidata item. See for instance Lymantria (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the sitelink, then added it again. Now it's there. No idea about the cause. --SCIdude (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been finding a number of cases like this recently - items are merged, and although it looks fine on Wikidata, the information from (interwikis or content fetched through the sitelink) it no longer shows up on Commons/enwp. Any edit (e.g., adding 'test' to the labels, or removing a property) seems to clear it up. It doesn't seem to be any particular user, and I think the oldest case I found yesterday was from the 26th September (Category:İlkadım District (Q32709947)). Some other examples were Category:Polish books (Q10116410), Category:November-class submarines (Q6207422), and Category:2013 papal conclave (Q6215728) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Deprecated ORCID identifiers

I asked attention of ORCID for our duplicate ORCID identifiers.. Many of them have been deprecated. this is an example. Is it possible to identify deprecated ORCID identifiers and remove them? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. No, it should not be done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
For deprecated identifiers they should be set as deprecated in Wikidata.--GZWDer (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Please make sure that the functionality that reports of errors takes them into account and, PLEASE what is the point, these indicators can be found at source. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Quality of location properties

Hello. I've been testing stuff at a Wikidata sandbox, and stumbled upon a situation where country (P17) is set to a particular country, but location (P276) is set to a location not located within that country. Do we have a way of notifying the editor for such occurrences, and maybe also a way of searching such issues currently on other items? Note that this is not limited to the mentioned properties, but could also be in other property types such as located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Cheers. Rehman 12:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You may be looking for a query like this one: Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Semantic Scholar author ID

In the last iterations of multiple items with the same ORCID identifier, i find that many errors co-occur with errors in the Semantic Scholar author ID. I do remove these identifiers but what prevents re-occurence? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske:.--GZWDer (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you remove the identifiers? The optimal solution is often to merge the items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I remove them because I am not getting side lined from fixing ORCID problems. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Then just leave things alone. Otherwise, you are damaging Wikidata; and making it harder for other people to improve it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
There are multiple possible cases here. In some cases merging is the way to go. In others where an identifier is wrong, the solution is to deprecate the wrong identifier. If you don't deprecate will likely be refilled sooner or later by a bot. ChristianKl❫ 07:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Question re: portraits modeled after different people

This question is re: Jerónimo Pérez (Q70298355). The current image is a painting theoretically of the friar, but it was painted after the friar's death and likely actually modeled off of a different person living in the friary (perhaps a Juan de Herrera). Is it appropriate to keep this picture on the page of the friar? I assume yes in the same way that we have images of other historical persons that don't actually represent them (e.g. Jesus Christ (Q302)). But is there any way (qualifier?) to indicate that this painting is not a literal likeness of Jerónimo Pérez (Q70298355)? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: related image (P6802) exists, though I’m not sure if it’s more appropriate in this case. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

SPARQL query map

Hi all,

I am thinking about embedding the result of a SPARQL map query in the frontpage of a website. It shouldn't have many visits but I am not sure about the limitations. I was wondering if this is it the right way to do it. Thanks in advance! --Gustavo.candela (talk) 08:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If possible, please set up a regularly running script that retrieves and caches the query result on your server. It could run daily or hourly or so, depending on how dynamically the data set changes. Otherwise the request might quickly get blocked by the Query Servers. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #386

Why are unpatrolled changes rendered immediately at Wikipedia?

Hello. In this edit to Q592 (gay), 2620:22:4000:1202:1fa1:f76b:c060:2f54 (talkcontribslogs) vandalized the English description. The diff page shows a bracketed hyperlink, "Mark as patrolled", which implies to me that this edit has not yet been patrolled, so, presumably, it's a low-confidence change, or not ready for prime time, or something of that nature; is that right? Nevertheless, the Wikipedia page w:Gay was showing the vandalized description as the "short description" at the top of the page. Can unpatrolled edits be blocked from being ported over to descriptions, infoboxes, or anywhere they might appear in sister projects, until they are patrolled?

I'm uncertain if this is a Wikidata or a Wikipedia issue; if the latter, please let me know, and I'll move this discussion. Thanks, (ping, please) Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot: Hi. We should contact the development team to know whether such restriction can be applied or not. If it is possible, pros and cons should be carefully analized. And this is a Wikidata matter, indeed. Esteban16 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
This feature is called pending changes. I doubt that there are enough patrollers on Wikidata to check everything, though. Ghouston (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know that extension could be used in this case. But like said above, it would require a tremendous amount of help. --Esteban16 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Esteban16, Ghouston:, thanks for your comments. Yes, I'm familiar with pcr on Wikipedia, and not infrequently review changes myself. Since I'm not nearly as familiar with Wikidata as either of you, would one of you mind taking the lead on this, as far as taking it to the dev team? If you'd prefer I do it, I'm willing; but it sounds like you know much more about the situation than I do. I totally believe you that there aren't enough patrollers on Wikidata, but that would mean that mostly autopatrolled changes would get ported to Wikipedia. I don't know the ratio of (edits by active, non-autopatrolled Wikidata editors / edits by active wikidata editors); if it is not huge, maybe having unpatrolled changes blocked from porting to Wikipedia is not too large a price to pay, even if some percentage of unpatrolled edits are good ones. What do you think?
Also, there must be some cross-project interest in this discussion from the Wikipedia side as well; I'll see if I can come up with the right project or noticeboard, and alert them to this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Patrolling edits on Wikidata can be difficult, since changes to labels and descriptions can be in a multitude of languages. If one edit isn't patrolled, then subsequent edits would also be backlogged as unpatrolled. It would also break site links when pages on Wikipedia are renamed, since the related Wikidata edits are often by users who aren't autopatrolled. Some bad edits on Wikidata are probably found when they are displayed on other wikis, and blocking that process would presumably make Wikidata worse, not better (it's likely that unpartrolled edits would just sit around, until somebody notices the backlog and patrols them en masse, just so that their own edits can go through). Ghouston (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
So, it would seem like the focus should be on blocking unpatrolled edits from appearing on Sister projects then; do you agree? Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No, since sister projects would then tend to display old data, which would not necessarily be any more correct than new data. It may be outdated, for example. Ghouston (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you say that old data wouldn't be more correct? Don't we rely more on autopatrolled users, than newer ones? Otherwise, what is the point of even having this distinction among users? As a Wikipedia user, I would rather see formerly correct data that is now possibly old, than up-to-the-minute vandalism. What am I missing? Mathglot (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
An item would stop updating once it has been edited by a new user, as I understand it. They may have just changed a sitelink because they renamed a page on Wikipedia, so it's a perfectly good edit. All subsequent edits would also be ignored, since you'd have to take the last version with no unpatrolled edits. You'd be throwing out a lot of perfectly good edits just to avoid one perfectly good unpatrolled edit (or vandalism, maybe in some language you don't even care about, as the case may be). Ghouston (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your feedback. We need more eyeballs on this; I've notified WP:VPT and relevant WikiProjects at Wikipedia. Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Surely the simple solution is not to import Wikidata descriptions into a language Wikipedia? Keeping each short description on the local Wiki allows local Wikipedians to curate them there. There's nothing lost by not using the Wikidata description as the version in a given language isn't used in more than one language Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
At first glance, I could support that approach, but I know little about this topic so far. As something that would affect the interaction between multiple sister projects, this deserves airing at a venue where it can elicit thorough discussion by numerous concerned editors from multiple projects, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is the right venue. Perhaps at Meta? Mathglot (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Here it is probably still better than Meta in terms of engagement. However, different projects use vastly different strategies of interacting with Wikidata, and I am not sure there is one solution which would be good for everybody. Then discussing it separately at every project might be an even better strategy, though right now any discussion at the English Wikipedia concerning Wikidata has a good chance to be closed as "Never ever any interaction possible" and will likely not be productive.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, can you disambiguate your quoted remark: does that mean, 1) Discussions between wp and wd are impossible, 2) The data on the two projects should not interact/be imported, 3) Something else? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I meant "We do not want any data from Wikidata, and ideally we do not even want to hear about Wikidata anymore". Note that this is not my personal opinion but my experience of participation in many discussions over there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter:, Okay, thanks. It sounds like there's a lot of history here that I'm unaware of. Can you perhaps drop me a link or two here or at my Talk page, which will help me come up to speed on past discussions about this? It also explains RexxS's somewhat exasperated response at VPT, which I now understand better; RexxS: I apologize if I barged into a touchy subject without enough background. Just trying to do the right thing at WP with respect to shortdesc. Sounds like I have a lot of reading to do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This gives a good flavor how these discussions typically run. There was something more contentious in the beginning of 2018, but I can not easily find it now. Arguments [ here[ also give an impression.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Ymblanter. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Bear in mind that Commons also uses the descriptions from Wikidata (via the infobox) - the use of descriptions isn't something exclusive to Wikipedias. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
As far as I understand the decision against not showing unpatrolled edits is to allow Wikipedia users who might not be autoconfirmed on Wikidata fix errors in Wikipedia infoboxes that display Wikidata content and display the new information immediately. ChristianKl❫ 20:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If they were autoconf on Wikipedia, couldn't they simply override it there, by adding param=value in the Infobox, rather than coming here? Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, I think you argued last time for the status quo. ChristianKl❫ 07:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Mathglot: They could but that is really not what we should be striving for as a movement. We need to work together and not everyone doing their own thing. If we continue down the road of everyone doing their own thing instead of fixing something that's wrong for everyone then we will continue to massively disadvantage medium and smaller languages and wikis. That should not be ok for the movement because it goes against our vision. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
So, what is the right approach here, then? Mathglot (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding provinces to dutch municipalities

I would like to add provinces to all the dutch municipalities ( in Wikidata, the problem is I don't really know the best way to do it. The municipalities sometimes use but this creates some problems as there are other entities there (non-provinces or other municipalities from the past). This makes the query show double results which is inconvenient, an example: (4 results in the query). What would be the best way to look up the provinces only? Maybe somehow use in this situation?

Here is the query:

SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheidLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  { ?municipality wdt:P131 ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid. } }

Try it!

PS, Should I delete old and solved questions when creating new ones? Antoni1626 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

P131 is the correct way to go; that's what it's there for. There are two or three expedients to consider; but you'll need to decide on a policy going forwards. Using Scotland as a model, we appear to have moved towards redundant P131s at a couple of different levels of government - Local Authority and Civil Parish. Each P131 is qualified with object has role (P3831). It's thus possible and easy to query to get items by Parish or by Local Authority. (We'll probably implement a preferred rank for Local Authoriies eventually). Example at Shemore, Farmsteading, South East Range (Q17772983). Next, it is also possible to end-date old provinces, if that's an issue - example at Dunoon and Kilmun (Q68815389). Next, so far as queries are concerned, one can constrain the result set accoring to the P31 of a P131, so as long as all contemporary provinces have a common P31 there is no query problem. We're moving beyond the point at which we can rely on simple queries which do not test for values but rather make bad assumption. Next if there are P131s which are not administrative entities (e.g. they're really a location (P276), then they should be moved from P131 to P276, and/or removed. And finally, as already noted, statement rank may be used to provide a wdt: view of whatever the thruthy situation appears to be. Hope some of that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Old questions shouldn't be deleted. They get archived after a while automatically and having them in the history can be useful for people who have similar question in the future. ChristianKl❫ 09:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

How would a query look that does the same as the query above and looks for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) object has role (P3831) province of the Netherlands (Q134390) ? Thanks for the help! Antoni1626 (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Antoni1626: Something like this (last three lines changed, compared to your original query):
SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheidLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  ?municipality p:P131 ?gelegen_statement .
  ?gelegen_statement ps:P131 ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid.
  ?gelegen_statement pq:P3831 wd:Q134390
Try it! -- Jheald (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Antoni1626: A different query to try to do the same thing could look like this:
SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheidLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P580 ?begindatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  ?municipality wdt:P131 ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid.
  ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid wdt:P31 wd:Q134390
Try it!
This query just checks that the final ?gelegen_in_bestuurlijke_eenheid is a province of the Netherlands (Q134390), rather than checking whether the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statement has a object has role (P3831) = province of the Netherlands (Q134390) qualifier.
Normally if the different levels of administrative areas nest well within each other, we recommend only to give the nearest (lowest) level of the hierarchy in the P131, and let higher levels be worked out from it.
The complication happens if there are different types of 'lowest' administrative area that a location may be in; or if the nesting from lowest to highest doesn't work neatly, so one can't tell the query to just go up the chain until it finds an item with instance of (P31) = province of the Netherlands (Q134390). It's really only then, as a last resort, that one should start adding extra P131 values to items, with object has role (P3831) qualifiers to distinguish what they all are. Jheald (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Antoni1626: happy to see you working on this. I think you need to improve it a bit. A municipality of the Netherlands (Q2039348) should always be located in a province. On items like Nieuwolda (Q2483664) this should have an end time. I think these are the ones to fix:
SELECT ?municipality ?municipalityLabel ?begindatum ?einddatum ?CBS_gemeentecode ?Amsterdamse_code  WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?municipality p:P31 ?statement.
  ?statement ps:P31 wd:Q2039348.
  { ?statement pq:P582 ?einddatum . }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P382 ?CBS_gemeentecode. }
  OPTIONAL { ?municipality wdt:P6434 ?Amsterdamse_code. }
  MINUS { ?municipality wdt:P131/wdt:P31 wd:Q134390 } 
Try it! Multichill (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Is ?municipality wdt:P131/wdt:P31 wd:Q134390 required (887 results to fix), or is ?municipality wdt:P131+/wdt:P31 wd:Q134390 sufficient (104 results to fix,, i.e. allowing a P131 chain to get there in more than one link ? Jheald (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is, municipalicities are always directly under the province. Multichill (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

type mismatch with License property

Currently, the names of various copyright licenses are alternate names for copyright determination methods, for example PD-US-expired is alternate for published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828), which is an instance of copyright determination method (Q61005213) only. copyright license (P275) has its possible values restricted to only instances of license (Q79719), copyright status (Q50424085), or as a service (Q25036597). What is the solution for this? Should there in fact be items for licenses separate from determination methods? Or should we add instance of license to published more than 95 years ago (Q47246828); or expand the possible values for copyright license (P275) to include copyright determination method (Q61005213)?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levana Taylor (talk • contribs) at 19:57, 14 October 2019‎ (UTC).

@Levana Taylor: I think you're mixing up copyright license (P275) and copyright status (P6216). From the license property: "license under which this copyrighted work is released". The property should only be used on things that are copyrighted (at some point in time). I see you corrected yourself. Multichill (talk)
OK, yeah, forehead slap time. Thanks Levana Taylor (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals to change data types

I've refactored the above. Please use the talk pages of the respective properties to discuss this set of proposals, rather than flooding this page with duplicate and empty sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will continue there, I was working according to Help:Data_type#Changing_datatype which reads "To propose such a change, you may start a discussion at the talk page of the property or project chat." - apologies for the annoyance, will discuss on each property page instead then. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I removed the list and replaced it with links to specific properties below. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

There are some properties which have Data type International Standard Identifier for Libraries (P791) but should in my view be External identifier, please find below links to the proposals to change their data types, please add your opinion.:

Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Iwan.Aucamp: some of these didn't get converted due to opposition. I recall some properties that looked like identifiers, but turned out not really to be one. A lot of single value constraint (Q19474404) and distinct values constraint (Q21502410) violation is usually an indication that something is wrong. Some just got missed and can get converted. Would probably be nice to have links to the original discussions. I think these are on these pages:
Multichill (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: Thanks, will link to original discussion. I was not aware that External identifier has a uniqueness constraint (it should maybe be added here: External identifier). I will go through though and remove proposals from properties where the constraint cannot be met. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Iwan.Aucamp: Not a hard constraint, more like a soft one. If the uniqueness drops say below 90% that's a good indicator that something is maybe not an identifier. I wouldn't close any of these discussions now. Some people might not agree and should be given the chance to comment. Multichill (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Example of parliamentary group of the party

Hello. A new property constraint was added to parliamentary group (P4100). I don't disaggre. The problem is that I have used some months ago the property for many items using the party item and not the parliamentary group of the party. I just need a good example of a parliamentary group of the party (for national parliament) to create new items and correct the statements. Xaris333 (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaris333: I've updated the constraint, as this was giving an error on a lot of existing items. It should be okay to use a political party rather than a larger group as the value here, if that is what seems appropriate for your context. (It will vary a bit by country) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: Thanks. But, what is better for wikidata? To add the party item or the parliamentary group of the party item? I am interesting about Cyprus parliament House of Representatives (Q1112381). Xaris333 (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: As far as I can see from English WP - and I might be wrong! - Cyprus doesn't really have political groups (organised groups of parties), so I think it would make most sense here to use the parties, eg Progressive Party of Working People (Q212158) or Democratic Rally (Q644973).
An example of a country that does is Chile, where a lot of small parties are grouped together into larger groups in Parliament, and so we have Luciano Cruz-Coke (Q6696802) using parliamentary group (P4100):Chile Vamos (Q20859150), rather than Political Evolution (Q16565533), his actual party. See w:Chamber of Deputies of Chile for an example of how this breaks down. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. I hope that we will not have problems in the future. Xaris333 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

item change log filtering

Hi, this may be a newbie question but I didn't find the answer myself. I want to filter the change log for an item to list changes only to a particular statement. E.g. for Q43 I want to get an overview of changes to demonym (P1549) through item history. This could be known as a blame tool, but searching for such thing on WD didn't get me any useful hit.

The ordinary history view can filter for tag, but that isn't very useful in this case. It would be more useful to filter based on change summary, I think. I could also see a use to filter out label/description changes through the same means. Is there a tool for it, or a way to query change log?

I had a look through Wikidata:Tools with no luck. If you have the answer, I'd be happy for a Ping! Jagulin (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please answer here, I'm interested too! --SCIdude (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Ricordisamoa/WikidataTrust.js. This is not a scalable tool (for Q34 about 2.6GB need to be downloaded).--GZWDer (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. In that case maybe this should be a suggestion for improvements to the history view. Anyone know of such already, in Phabricator? I also think it should be possible to do a query for the change log. I will have a look at the API. Jagulin (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Duplicate references" has not been working for 14 days

Does anyone have any idea when the problem will be solved? HarryNº2 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

There’s a bug opened in Phabricator, but as far as I can tell there’s no ETA and no one committed to fixing it, alas. Really crippling my work. - PKM (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC) ·
Thank you for your answer. At the moment I do not feel like creating new articles or adding missing documents. I can only hope that someone will quickly solve the problem. HarryNº2 (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@HarryNº2: Fixed! - PKM (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Adopt a user program in Wikidata


I am interested in Wikidata and I have looked to some filters and there I saw that the number of editors with a little amount of edits is big. I have thinked about how it was for me to start editing in Wikidata and for me it was at the begin not so easy. I think it were great if there is a program like the Mentorenprogramm in the German Wikipedia or the Program Adopt-a-user in the English Wikipedia to help people start Editing Wikidata. What do you think about starting a Project like the mentioned ones here in Wikidata. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Many edits is probably just a sign that someone knows how to write program code. Many might not want this. --SCIdude (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That depends on what you mean with many edits. A user that makes 10,000s of edits is likely writing some code. We however have a lot more users that make 5 edits/month then we have users who make 100/month. ChristianKl❫ 07:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of a user mentorship program, if not (per SCIdude) for the specific reason of increasing the quantity of a user's edits. Mahir256 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Are you interested in participating in a project like that @Mahir256: and help people by specific questions in getting started with Wikidata. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the mentoring done, would you actively push the users to come back and contribute or be available only if they ask? I got a welcome note with starter links, I think that was nice and interpreted that as having someone to turn to if needed. On the other hand I think there are chats for those asking for help. Proactively improving the existing documentation and tutorials is a good way to lower the threshold, so reviewing beginner FAQ could be a project start. In many ways I think most users come here with the assumption that WD supports their language wiki needs rather than having a goal of itself. Clarifying that balance I think is important to foster quality contributions, but I also think that WD currently doesn't have the answer. Having the "mentoring project" at the Wp rather than in WD, I think would be a good way of showing how WD improve Wp, and I assume a lot of that mentoring is already managed that way. Jagulin (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate (Wikisource) badges added to Wikipedia articles


Lately, a lot of wikisource badges have been added to wikipedia articles ; those are inappropriate because they just measure the correction level of a text, not a decision of the community.

Very often, these addings have been made at the same time as the link was added, thus making it impossible to undo the edit without removing the link at the same time, and making it very long to remove the badge from each link, and impossible to add an explanation for the contributor to prevent further error.

The concerned badges are :

This has been first discussed by the fr community, and many wrong badges have been removed, especially on frwp, but it is not a typically fr problem, and should be solved on the general scale.

[edit] : there seems to be a real misunderstanding of what badges stand for, as on Tallinn (Q1770), the hawp link was added 4 (!!) badges, 2 of them being wikisource badges… (which I removed, without touching the other badges, not being able to judge of the relevance). - same here on lesbian (Q6649), and 6 !!!! on Samira Moussa

At least, Special:SetSiteLink page should contain a message about which links to add and why, instead of blindly invite users to add them...

Would it be possible to put constraints for badge additions, so that badges that were made for wikisource could not be added to wikipedia links (and the other way round too). - Thanks for your help on this. --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No, I do not think this is possible. I do not see how a check could be run whether it is a correct badge or not. On the other hand, only autoconfirmed users may add badges, and I guess there are not so many users of the French Wikisource who are autoconfirmed at Wikidata, it might be easier to leave all of them a personal message explaining what went wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I fixed all remaining cases of Wikisource-only badges on non-Wikisource sitelinks.
  • Mind that there is another Wikisource-only badge which you have not listed above: digital document (Q28064618)
  • On a side note: there is a badge type good list (Q51759403) for ptwiki and maybe eswiki, but frwikivoyage does use it quite a bit as well (query). Is there such a page status defined in frwikivoyage at all? fr-N user Hsarrazin could maybe help me here :-)
  • There is some more stuff related badges available on a page in my user space: User:MisterSynergy/misc/sitelink badges

MisterSynergy (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing the cleanup MisterSynergy, - my personal final query for detecting them all is now - thanks for your queries on badges  
I was not aware of digital document (Q28064618) and would not know how to use it... do you know who created it, in what context ? I think it was perhaps enwikisource ?
the problem is not of Frwikisource users wrongly adding badges (I'm probably the only one doing so, using a tool specifically designed to retrieve it from frwikisource)
the problem is wikisource text correction badges (indicators) being used on wikipedia links (or list, categories, and I even templates), by wikipedia users who do not understand those badges. I've tried to leave a message on each of those users personal page, but it is not very easy when they speak russian, arabic, chinese, etc...
I thought perhaps a constraint on those badges, excluding wikipedia links, or an abuse-filter could detect those wrong additions (the specific values of these badges) used in "wikipedia group" links ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, digital document (Q28064618) seems to be somewhat enwikisource-specific per this query. It was defined per request at phab:T153186.
  • User:Abián created another phabricator task at phab:T235374 yesterday to request that only applicable badges should be displayed in the UI. If that was implemented, it would already be quite helpful.
  • I wrote a small script yesterday to batch-remove wrong Wikisource-only badges from non-Wikisource sitelinks, including a descriptive edit summary. I could run it occasionally if nobody wants to set up a continuous bot job.
MisterSynergy (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I knew a script could do it, but I can't write one, so I must have cleaned up hundreds of them by hand yesterday, and let some messages on contributors pages   --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
(ec.)@MisterSynergy: Wondering how to translate digital document (Q28064618) in German? It looks like the only existing badge that miss German translation. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, now it has German label+description. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Badges for sitelinks to redirects

What is the process for creating new badges?

Per the community comments at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata, it would be good for sitelinks to redirects to be identified, ideally distinguishing intentional redirects (those marked with Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589) on the Wikipedia) from redirects not so marked (which may be left-overs from merges, and may indicate duplicated items here that should be merged).

Would it be straightforward to create a pair of badges for these, ideally kept updated by a regularly-running bot? Jheald (talk) 09:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

this should be asked on --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Phab:T235420 "Create wikidata badges to indicate when sitelinks point to Wikipedia redirect pages" now created. Jheald (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: If/when such badges do get created, would it be easy for you to write a bot to keep them updated? Jheald (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Lydia has responded on Phab that "Adding two badges is easy enough. We just need the name and the icon for it." [emphasis added]
I have therefore created two items, sitelink to redirect (Q70893996) and intentional sitelink to redirect (Q70894304) for these badges, where we can start to assemble translations.
Icons next to the links in the sidebar will be very very small, and therefore need to be quite simple. I would suggest that possible might be:
for redirects, and 'intentional' redirects (ie redirect pages marked with Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589)), respectively. Yes, the grey and the blue are almost indistinguishable, but to most Wikipedia readers the distinction will hardly matter.
In the links section of wikidata item pages we could use
Charlie Reid (musician)    
Charlie Reid (musician)    
These badges would be straightforward to pick up with WDQS queries, in the same way that we can currently pick up featured articles etc.
Does this seem viable?
Other potential icons can be found in c:Category:Redirect_arrows, c:Category:Norro style 1 icons (arrows), etc., if people would prefer somthing like
for the sidebar, or
Charlie Reid (musician)    
for the wikidata page (or something quite different).
The other redirect icon is also available off-the-peg in red,
Charlie Reid (musician)    
if people want something more attention-seeking, since redirects that are not "intended" can often indicate unresolved duplication here. I have thought to go for the less strident grey, as not all wikipedias offer the Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589) template; but what do people think? Jheald (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Alternatively, perhaps we're better without the circular border. (The existing "rosette" icons don't have such a thing.) Would something more like
Charlie Reid (musician)   
Charlie Reid (musician)   
look better?
Or one could use the same redirect icons as the sidebar,
Charlie Reid (musician)   
Charlie Reid (musician)   
This is perhaps more direct and explicit. Jheald (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Also in red, if that would make redirect links not confirmed as intentional stand out better
Charlie Reid (musician)   
But perhaps that needs to be a little more muted. Jheald (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you should just make a suggestion according to your personal preferences in the phab topic. If there is opposition at a later point, we can still update the icons. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
My current preference is for the last two -- the red for redirect pages that don't have the Template:Wikidata redirect (Q16956589) template, the blue for those that do.
I'll sleep on it, and give the chance for anyone else to comment overnight, and then after that let's go for it. As you say, it's easy enough to update later, once it's clearer how it looks in the wild. Jheald (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Such a bot looks doable at first glance, but putting all parts together would be quite a task. SQL queries are rather simple, the required SPARQL query is no problem either. Sorting things to figure out required edits based on the different query inputs is not overly complicated. What looks a bit nasty is the requirement that these queries have to be run for each and every Wikimedia project individually, which means that one probably does not want to do it daily.
Regarding the actual editing, I am not sure whether pywikibot has useful badge editing capabilities. The aforementioned script does not use any bot framework and makes direct API calls, which is okay for a one-off 500 edits batch, but for a continuous job that is not sufficient… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like badge support in pywikibot went live in June this year (phab:T128202). If we ping @Lokal Profil: he may be able to tell us how complete the support is, and whether he thinks it would be up to the task. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint, indeed there is support now. I tried it yesterday with PAWS, but there seemed to be no badge support yet in spite of some indications in the documentation [5]. Now I just found that PAWS has an outdated version of pywikibot (Pywikibot version: [https] r-pywikibot-core.git (71e36c1, g10980, 2019/04/30, 16:42:46, OUTDATED)). On Toollabs, there is apparently now badge support. I have not actually used it yet, but the badges are visible at least… —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
If it takes multiple days to have up to date icons I would advocate against red as a color to draw attention. Having blue/grey is enough to give the user the information they need and I see no need to draw a huge amount of attention. We also need to decide about what to do with Wikis that don't have the template. ChristianKl❫ 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to add - I think the blue/grey plain arrows look great. Hopefully avoids any colourblindness issues that might come from blue/red or blue/green, and it's a nice muted colourscheme that fits with the rest of the UI. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

page is not showing on Google.

Dear sir,

I craeted a page on wikipedia, . Then I Created wikidata profile of this page, Q70884813. Problem is that....this page is not showing on google. What is the problem??

User talk:Virenderthind2019

  1. convenience link en:The Game of Votes (don't presume everyone is on a mobile device).
  2. We have no control of what Google does. - Jmabel (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Virenderthind2019: Articles in (only) English Wikipedia may only be indexed after they are patroled or at least 90 days old. See w:WP:NOINDEX.--GZWDer (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Jmabel how about if i made an article months ago in ArWiki - have no entire in EnWiki but Wikidata item is complete -but still year of death not showing when you search the item on Google in English? Something is wrong for date of death, especially for new items. --Ruwaym (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, we have no control of what Google does. - Jmabel (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

bulk load in wikidata

Dear friens, I have the following situation with a private instance of wikidata, the case is that we want to upload 1,5 millions of dataset, that is moreless 30 millions of triples. We are loading at a rate of 1 data set per second, but that is too slow, because we would be talking about 46 working days to load this dataset. We just created a bot, and modified the average time per edit, however nothing changes, and the processing time holds. I thank you in advance any recommendation.

Luis Ramos  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 11:23, 15 October 2019‎ (UTC). If your Wikibase instance is internal, you don't need to care the speed of editing (Wikidata itself care it because 1. the database is replicated, 2. changes must be dispatched to Wikibase clients and 3. there's a public query service that should be updated continously). You may try to load the dataset in parallel. Note the speed may still be limited by the performance of the server.--GZWDer (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand anything you guys are talking about other than "speed". So, all I have to add is - I've found Wikidata (and other the sister wiki projects) has been going really slow. Take that into consideration. If the site itself is running slow, anything you are doing with it is going to run slow. Quakewoody (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
You have come on to wikidata, Quakewoody, a wikibase site which receives iirc ~750,000 edits per day to tell us that your wikibase instance is loading data slowly and to suggest that the cause is the wikibase code. Rather than, for instance, your slow server, or some deficiency in the method you're using to upload data, or a configuration parameter mis-set. You profess not to understand a mildly technical answer, above. I suspect you may have exhausted our ability to help you. I note which seems like a better starting point to access wikibase help, than this board. Good luck. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
What I said was - the site has been running very slow. I didn't say it was a slow site. My "slow server" has seen a dramatic slowdown in the last few weeks on this site, not all other sites. Quakewoody (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear friends, at first thanks for the recommendations, I do not pretend to create more than technical discussion for improvement of our work. My expertise area is knowledge representation and reasoning, and perhaps my question was very basic in the sense of server edition, performance and that stuff. Currently, I am working in parallel loading, and I also have read about all the effort is being done to improve bulk load in wikidata, but my interest was to know about any other possible experience with the issue I am facing, which could be caused by server, network, my code or other causes. Any other technical recommendation will be welcome.

Luis Ramos

military specialty

How do we handle a military specialty like "radioman" or "medic" or "rifleman" or "sharpshooter", they are not ranks but military specialties. They are not really occupations, since they only occur during military service, usually just a few years. --RAN (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

field of work (P101) maybe? I don't think that there's any rule that occupations need to last for any particular length of time. Ghouston (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Why not position held (P39)?

Merge articles

Could someone please merge Q17773023 into Q771035 and Q9662403 into Q7015952? Traditional and folk medicine seems pretty much the same thing and there are no conflicting links (i.e. no wikipedia has two separate articles/categories). -- 09:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,
you can do it by yourself; please have a look at Special:MergeItems. Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC).
  Done I merged them for you, but in the future you should use Special:MergeItems or the gadget. --SixTwoEight (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements project

06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Visualizations using Wikidata: a wordmap and an etymology radial graph - check them out

I have published two new visualizations based on Wikidata/Wiktionary. Any feedback would be really welcome.

The first visualization is a wordmap: it shows word translations on a map. Try it out and let me know what you think about it and if you have ideas on how to improve it. Link: Wikidata Wordmap.

The second visualization shows words that are etymologically connected (i.e. share the same ancestor) on a radial graph. While a representation using trees would be ideal, data actually belongs to a directed cyclic graph, which is difficult to visualize. After testing different representations I tested the visualizations on two words:

My idea is to have a tool to search any word, visualize the radial graph of etymologies using Wikidata lexemes, add an interaction to show word definitions and pronunciations. The data in the visualizations was extracted from the English Wiktionary using etytree. The RDF database generated by etytree (SPARQL endpoint) can potentially be used to populate Wikidata lexemes. Please let me know your feedback on the visualizations as well as on a possible integration of etytree data into Wikidata.

Epantaleo (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Calendar issues ? Two date of births that may be the same, what to do ?

See Robert Hooke (Q46830) (at the time I write those lines). 2 dates of birth, 10 days apart, both mentioned on enwiki as the same date … in old and new style. Is it enough to mark the old style one with « Julian » calendar, even if the other sources does not seem to specify a calendar ? Which one should be marked as preferred ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

A spooky calendar issue. Isaac Newton (Q935) is a more prominent example. ;) --Succu (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC) See en or de. --Succu (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for help with an item

Hi all,

I'm still a newbie to WD so I apologize if it's a stupid question, but is there a way to add two "inception" values to an item? I wanted to add a party (Q277879) to a politician's data page, but an error message came up, saying the party was dissolved in 1949 and the policitian was born later. The party was dissolved in 1949 but was refounded in 1989, and it considers itself the same party. Even page Q277879 shows this error next to the leader's name who was also born after 1949. How can I add the 1989 date without getting error messages?

Thanks in advance. Alensha (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • If the two incarnations of the party are to be considered a single thing, we need to treat the period it was inactive as a hiatus, not a dissolution and a new inception. - Jmabel (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
thanks! how can I add a hiatus? haven't found this property on List of properties/Time. Alensha (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I think a 40 year hiatus is pretty questionable, is there any evidence that they are really the same party, such as having the same people involved, or is it basically a new party that's taken over an old name? Dormancy can be indicated using dormancy (Q55909176) like on United Australia Party (Q15130081). Ghouston (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
That party was also at one point claimed to be a continuation of United Australia Party (Q1728956), but Wikipedia unsurprisingly treats it as a new party. Ghouston (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
In Wikidata it's generally more useful to split an item into two in cases like this to make the meaning of the individual items more clear. ChristianKl❫ 09:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
In this case, there is some overlap of members between the original and refounded parties, and the English and Hungarian wikipedias both treat it in a single article. Enwiki says: "The link between the historical party and the present one is disputed, although prominent members of the original party, like László Varga, took part in its refoundation." Ghouston (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I used dormancy, like in the Australian party's item.

It is a good question whether it can be viewed as the continuation of the old party or not, but as long as Wikipedia doesn't have separate pages on them, we have to treat it as one party in WD... Alensha (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Kilmalkedar Church

Hello! Should Kilmalkedar Church (Q55046509) and Kilmalkedar Church (Q30247213) be merged? There is nothing in the place of the first (according to satellite), so probably wrong coordinates, but there is also a different Wiki Loves Monuments ID. Wikisaurus (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The Irish National Inventory of Architectural Heritage ID (P4088) identifiers seem to point to different buildings about 600m apart, and both have buildings shown on the GIS server it links to. One's a modern building (pictured by HEI with a roof), one a historic ruin (pictured by us without). Seem to be clearly distinct. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Building that has changed uses

Are there any good models of how to deal with a building that has changed uses over time? This came up with Mercy Friary (Q47766776)/Museum of Fine Arts of Seville (Q2163496). I'm not sure I found a satisfactory solution -- it seems here like what I've done associates the physical building with Mercy Friary (Q47766776) and there is no item for the religious community that happened to reside in the building (whereas the museum that happens to reside in the building gets its own item). Is there a better way to do this? Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

So I give up: I've just looked at three prominent buildings that have this situation and the way it's handled ranges from poor (General Post Office (Q5532118)/Hotel Monaco (Q5911750), Romanian Peasant Museum (Q623662)) to "at least you might be able to work it out" (Dallas County Courthouse (Q5211300)). Anyone got any good examples? - Jmabel (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Would Musée d'Orsay (Q23402) qualify? It uses P138 to refer to Gare d'Orsay (Q2698691).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Louvre Palace (Q1075988)? Ayack (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to remember that a building is a building and a museum is not just a building but also an institution. That's why there should always be 2 items : one for the building itself and a second for the institution in the building. This is what I did for some museum like Les Champs Libres (Q3231356) (in this case, there was no choice as there is 3 institutions in the building). With that in mind Museum of Fine Arts of Seville (Q2163496) seems wrong as it mix things related to the building and things related to the instutition. As some property are used in both context with different meaning (for instance inception (P571) means construction date for a building and establishment/foundation date for an institution), it's even more importante to make a clear distinction. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, I was about to bring up the same question about a school building. I made two entries for the organizations housed there and treated it as a succession, using "replaces" and "replaced by" when I could not find a standardized example. --RAN (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
See also hospital (Q16917) and hospital (Q180370) where we have the organization that is housed in a building. The hospital organization can be housed in multiple buildings over their century long existence. --RAN (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hagia Sophia (Q12506) is also a good/bad example of handling this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • St. Helena Public Library (Q58126363) is an example I am happy with. - PKM (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd consider making all buildings simply instance of building (Q41176) and using other properties, like use (P366) and occupant (P466) to record how they are used, with start and end dates as required. This would help separate items for buildings from items for organizations. Ghouston (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • We need to address items like prison (Q40357), which is subclass of both “facility” and “institution”. - - PKM (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • It's certainly not unheard of for buildings to change use from prisons to something else. But I think generally we shouldn't be using subclassing to express information that has a dedicated property. With prison (Q40357), I'd be included to make it an institutional item, although even if use (P366) is used, you need an item to set as the value. Ghouston (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Spectacled flowerpecker, Dicaeum dayakorum

en:Spectacled flowerpecker opens with the words :

The spectacled flowerpecker (Dicaeum dayakorum) is a species of bird belonging to the flowerpecker family, Dicaeidae.

cited to [6], published yesterday.

The linked Wikidata item, Spectacled Flowerpecker (Q3551001), is classed as a polyphyletic group of organisms known by one particular common name (Q55983715), with no taxonomic name. A search of Wikidata for "Dicaeum dayakorum" find no results. Should Q55983715 be remodelled, or should a new item be created. and if the latter, should the en, and other, interwiki links be moved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. on further examination, the item was previously classed as an instance of taxon (Q16521), so the first part of my question is really, should that statement be restored? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I would change it to a normal species item, since that's how it now seems to be described. Ghouston (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I created A distinctive new species of flowerpecker (Passeriformes: Dicaeidae) from Borneo (Q71448303) and made the changes. --Succu (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


Göran Andersson Nordberg (Q71400196) and Jöran Nordberg (Q737301)? --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes but calls him Göran for some reason. --Wolverène (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • enwiki: "Göran or Jöran (both pronounced [²jœːran]) is the Swedish form of George, not to be confused with the Slavic Goran." --SCIdude (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Unidentified authors, again

Further to a discussion from last week: @Jura1: said that the practice, when you don't know anything about the author of a certain work except the initials they signed the work with, is to create an item for them, with the initials as label and something like "author of [work]" as description. Ergo, every work has an author item, even if it's a very uninformative one. I can see the advantage of that, since the placeholder author item can be updated or merged if the writer is ever identified. Jura1 didn't say what is done with unsigned works by unidentified authors. The extension of the logic of what I wrote above would be to create an item with the label "Author of [Work]" like the Pearl Poet but usually not nearly as memorable verse! :-) Thoughts? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know whose practice is to create authors with initials only... apart from Jura's
in fact, many authors, on the contrary have "unknown value" or anonymous (Q4233718) + stated as (P1932) (including *** sometimes), which allows to have the signature at it is stated on the article, and easily fetch all articles for which author is yet to be found.
there are currently 3583 author (P50) -> anonymous (Q4233718) (see ), not counting translator (P655) or other functions... - I do not know how to query the "unknown value" @VIGNERON: can you help on this, please ?
it does not seem a good idea to create hundreds, potentially tenths of thousands of so-called author items, with only initials... better to have info stored on the article item, then create (or link) the author item if you finally identify them...
the "placeholder" idea may seem practical on a small scale, but when you'll have hundreds of B. authors, how will you manage the possible wrong adding of one of those on another work ? even with homonyms (which are rarely in big numbers), there are already people who confuse the authors... - there is absolutely no info apart from initials and the fact that the person has written this specific text ? no IDs, nothing to help with completing these items... if 2 or more of them are merged, do you think it will be noticed ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: For querying somevalue/novalue, see Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Anonymous to fix.--GZWDer (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thanks GZWDer but I don't understand the syntax. Could you modify to query items with author (P50) -> unknown value, please ? - that would be very helpful... --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding. I think you should keep using "author name string" (and not an item for anonymous and the qualifier "stated as" with the pseudonym .. not sure where this came from?). You can, if you want, create items do so. This allows to link them to other publications of the same person identified by the initial. --- Jura 18:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, I rephrase because I'm not sure of understanding what you mean... : author name string (P2093) should be used, and not author (P50) with anonymous (Q4233718) + stated as (P1932) ? - author name string (P2093) was not created for this... besides, it was created much later after we began to catalog anonymous works, and it was meant as a temporary dump... not as a permanent value
in fact, anonymous (Q4233718) links to templates used on various projects to state that the author is anonym - that's why it was used in the first place...
it would be possible to change to author name string (P2093), but this would mean changing thousands of items edited previously... for what gain ?
moreover, I do not think it is a good practice to use 2 different ways to state anonymous author/creator between books/articles and works of art... the logic is the same, the practice should be the same... --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I think we don't use "pseudonym" and "anonym" in the same way. "B." did write other articles in the same publication. --- Jura 18:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. The articles signed "B." are not all by the same person. The problem with putting too much stress on an initial like this is leading people into the mistake you just made: thinking it is an individual with an identity beyond that article, which would tempt them to add other articles to that record. Study of the signatures in Once a Week magazine shows that the same author often used different signatures, too. To be specific, "B." was used twice by Robert Buchanan, once by Mrs. Bairn, and twice by unknown persons whose works don't much resemble either of the other two. The initial "A." was used by 5 known people... Levana Taylor (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2019
thanks Levana Taylor - exactly my point ! Moreover, "Once a Week" is not the only publication involved... and I bet many more articles are just signed "B", and for most of those, there are no payment registers to help indentify them   --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: here is your query (very broad, you can add condition and filter if you need) @Jura1: how do you know that a text signed B. and an other one also signed by B. are by the same author B.? and yes, "B." is not really anonymous nor pseudonymous but it's a very similar the situation. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you. a lot VIGNERON. Contrary to what I expected, it shows that this option is not used a lot with P50 : only 97 items...
as for "anonymous authors", in libraries, that's exactly how these authors are called by librarians (in French, at least) : "anonymes"... (because absolutely nothing proves that this letter has anything to do with their real name)
my sister happened to be first-hand witness of what could happen when they are poorly handled during retroconversion of national libray with thousands of them : 26 "anonyms", A, B, C, D… - floruit 12th-20th century (sometimes earlier)... a gigantic mess !!!
that's why I think it is not a good idea to create items for these authors with only initials ; store those and create the author item (if needed) when identified is no more difficult and less risky. --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Apparently Levana knows precisely who the author is . --- Jura 19:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
not exactly : she knows that at least 4 different authors wrote using B. as signature... which is not necessarily "precise" :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I still don't see why you think they are anonymous .. --- Jura 20:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) Part of the reason for the confusion in this conversation may be different definitions of the word "anonymous." Some people (Jura?) use it in a very narrow sense, to mean someone who is deliberately concealing their identity. There actually are a couple of instances where the payment in the Once a Week account book is recorded as being made to "Anonymous, c/o [address]" -- there we have someone who doesn't want even the magazine's editor to know who they are! On the other hand, sometimes unsigned articles are unsigned as a matter of editorial policy: for instance, I recently read a history article discussing how a lot of magazines published unsigned book reviews to give the magazine the feeling of having a unified cultural-aesthetic outlook. That isn't anonymous in the narrow sense. Problem: we usually don't know what is the reason for an article being unsigned. So from a practical point of view we can't use the narrow definition of anonymity; we perhaps ought to not use that word. We can divide author identities into face identities (most basically, "author of X article," which may have a identifying designation like "B." -- you can call that designation a pseudonym, without stretching the meaning of that word too far) and personal identities (an individual human being). Sometimes we can connect one or several face identities with a personal identity, and sometimes you have a face identity designation which is used on several articles and you know they are all connected to the same personal identity so you can consider them to be the same face identity, designated by a single pseudonym. I think we can all agree that we ought to create items for personal identities and connect them to the articles they wrote, and make a note of what face identity each article has (either a designation or just "author of [article]"). But the question is, is it useful to create items for face identities not connected to personal identities?

There's two cases to consider when thinking about whether to create an item for a face identity. One is, when there's a distinctive face identity designation that groups together a bunch of writings that use that designation and you are sure they all have a common personal identity behind them, even if you can't say anything about the nature of that person (for example, we don't even know if the person using the pseudonym Louis Sand was a man or a woman or what, but there clearly was only one Louis Sand). It is definitely useful to have an item for this. Philosophically speaking, you could also create an item for the personal identity behind the pseudonym because you know there is such a person, but I think that a null-content item like that can be omitted because its existence can be simply inferred from the existence of a pseudonym. No reason to create an item with no additional information attached to it when its existence can be inferred in one step. And that I think is analogous to the situation of face identities that are so non-distinctive that they can't be connected to either personal identities or other face identities. The existence of a piece of writing implicates the existence of a face identity, either its signature or "author of", and if you know nothing further about that face identity, you can simply leave it to be inferred.

Which is all a very, very long-winded way of saying that I agree with Hsarrazin that creating author items for articles when you know nothing whatsoever about the author except their signature, if there even is one, is burdensome without being useful. Levana Taylor (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet more thoughts. I'm sure I'm reinventing the wheel because I wasn't around for previous discussions, but I do want to get this down on paper, sorry. In what I said above, personal identities would be "instance of human," and face identity designations would be "instance of pseudonym." (I will have to go back and change some items I created for pseudonyms where I did put "instance of human," before I clarified my thinking this way.) I'm starting to think that the author property should only have values that are humans. That makes it easy to cover all cases: either you know a personal identity for the author, in which case you put in that item, or you don't, in which case you put in "unknown value." "stated as" could be mandatory (well, highly recommended), and would be either the signature or "no value" if there's no signature. So what if this is one of the articles that has a useful pseudonym but no personal identity? That could be an additional qualifier for "author": "pseudonymous author." and no, it wouldn't be redundant with "stated as." consider the case of D. Richmond. This person, whoever they were, published Book A signed D. Richmond, Book B unsigned, and Book C signed "the author of A and B." Voila, books grouped together by a common face identity, which face identity can only be referred to as "D. Richmond." So the authorship info for Book B is author:unknown value, pseudonymous author:D. Richmond, stated as:no value. Levana Taylor (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say there's no point in creating items that contain no information. If the item just says "author of book X", it contains nothing beyond what you can already find in the item for book X, and it probably violates the notability policy. However, if you can somehow establish that an author, whether completely anonymous or using a pseudonym, is the author of more than one work, then it would be worth creating the item make a link between the works. Ghouston (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Ghouston. If there's not enough information to reliably match/not-match people to an item, then it shouldn't be created. Per WD:N there needs to be sufficient information, from serious sources, for an item to be justified. Jheald (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking up a remark which @Jura1: made in the section (on a related topic) below, "author (P50) has a dedicated property for cases where no item is created: author name string (P2093)." I don't think author name string (P2093) is suitable for articles with unknown authorship, especially if they're signed with an uninformative initial, and it can't be used if there is no signature at all. The signature is not an author name, not even a pseudonym (in the sense of a name that the writer could be distinctively known by). stated as (P1932) is not an allowed qualifier for author name string (P2093), either. I doubt the issue of unknown authors, pseudonyms, signatures, etc. was considered when "author name string" was created. Levana Taylor (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

somevalue + stated as

Further up the thread there is discussion about setting values to unknown somevalue with qualifier stated as (P1932) to be able to record a text value for a statement when there is no wish to create an item.

This is a standard mechanism used with a number of properties, which I am fully in favour of, though apparently User:Jura1 sees a problem with it (diff, thread)

However, it does seem that the infoboxes in some languages may need some updating to reflect it. For example, see fr:Albert Lynch now reporting values of "Inconnu" for "Père", "Mère", and "Conjoint" following edits to Albert Lynch (Q2407898). If somebody is familiar with the fr-wiki modules, it would be great if this could be sorted out. Jheald (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

anonymous (Q4233718) is constraint violating for author. If two works have the same item as author they are supposed to be authored by the same person. That assumption stops working once you add anonymous (Q4233718) as a value for author. ChristianKl❫ 12:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings seems to be mostly using anonymous (Q4233718) for creator (P170), where a particular artist cannnot be identified (eg Q26692804#P170). This follows some discussion in 2014 about this (here). There was a suggestion then to use somevalue, but it doesn't seem to have been taken up. Pinging @Multichill: for his latest understanding of the project best-practice thoughts on this. anonymous (Q4233718) is not formally constraint-violating, since there can be no constraint requiring every book to have a uniquely different author; but I can see that this value might need to be specifically excluded in some queries. Jheald (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: Fine. But this bit of the thread is about using somevalue with stated as (P1932) on properties which don't have such an auxiliary property, eg publisher (P123), spouse (P26), father (P22), mother (P25), etc, when those inidividuals are not otherwise notable, or to record them in an upload when there is no wikidata item for them yet. You previously objected to this, and called it "problematic", when I tried to change the constraints on spouse (P26). Are you now okay that this is a standard mechanism that people are using, in statements on many kinds of properties, for this purpose?
The second point I was making was that infoboxes in wikis in some languages are not handling this well, in the hope that somebody might see this and help them to do better. Jheald (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. Maybe it's better to disconnect it from author (P50) others are discussing. So what's your difficulty with using "create item"? --- Jura 08:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: (1) For big uploads it doesn't fit the workflow. You want to be able to concentrate on the new items you are creating, and make sure those reflect the metadata you have, before having to turn to what can be the very intensive and time-consuming operation of creating auxiliary items. It's useful to be able to park the information here in string form for values without an item, so at least it is queryable, everyone can see it, and anyone can turn it into an item if they wish, rather than leave it unimported at all. (2) For many individuals, there may be no notability apart from as the spouse of X, or the father of Y. If that is all we know about them, it is generally not worth creating an item. Jheald (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
For (2), it's generally understood that there is a structural need to create such items. --- Jura 08:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: No, it generally isn't. This seems to be a personal view of your own, that is generally not shared. Similar to the objections above, for it to be better not to create items for authors given only by intials. We don't just create an item for the sake of creating an item. There can be a "structural need" e.g. to create a father as a bridging item, if both the son and the grandfather are notable. But that is 'generally' the full extent (at least for parents, spouses, etc) of how far "structural need" is pushed. Jheald (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have anything to support your POV about this being a general POV? If Wikidata was meant to be a text-based database, I'd have built it differently. About (1), I can understand that it's a tempting shortcut. --- Jura 09:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • WD:N An item should typically be describable using serious and publicly available references. If that's not the case, then it's just clutter.
But let's throw this open, and see what other people on this board think, to see what is the 'generally' understood view. Jheald (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you meant per #2 of WD:N. --- Jura 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Discussion noted at Wikidata_talk:Notability#Wives_of_great_men_/_Husbands_of_great_women Jheald (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

SourceMD cruft?

2C (Q57483490) claims to be a scholarly article (Q13442814) but if the DOI is followed what is found looks like it might be a single image (figure 2C?) from an academic paper (gory image warning). There's no traceability in the item history, just anonymous bots. Clearly there's an issue if wikidata is being loaded with items representing themselves as academic papers but turning out to be jpgs. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Mysterious. I searched for the DOI and found which contains a reference "Crinnion, W. J. (2011). 2CSauna as a Valuable Clinical Tool for cardiovascular, autoimmune, toxicant- induced and other chronic health problems. Alternative Medicine Review, 16(3), 215-225. doi:10.15417/1881." Note the title starts with 2C. But the actual paper this represents (here the Google Scholar cluster) does not have the 2C.
My hypothesis is the author of the first PDF copied the ref from somewhere leaving the 2C as artifact (isn't "=2C" a space in some coding?). Second, some bot scraped the ref from the PDF and put it in some database... but the picture desn't fit. Better ideas? --SCIdude (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The item was created about 1 year ago; I'd recommend just nominating it for deletion, it's not used by anything or linked anywhere. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think deletion is the right things to do. w:Digital object identifier: "The names can refer to objects at varying levels of detail: thus DOI names can identify a journal, an individual issue of a journal, an individual article in the journal, or a single table in that article." So this DOI seems valid. If we delete it, it may be reimported if they are contained in other lists or databases.--GZWDer (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Dropping "scholarly" from the label of Q13442814 would describe more accurately the items using that P31 value. --- Jura 07:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Interface suggestion

It'd be nice to have an "add statement" link at the top of pages as well as the bottom. Levana Taylor (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Just use "a" on your keyboard. --SCIdude (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you mean by that? Levana Taylor (talk) 13:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
See KeyShortcuts in your preferences. I'm sorry, I'm using these so frequently that I thought they were on by default. --SCIdude (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice to know. But probably, like me, the majority of users are unaware these keyshortcuts exist, so maybe a make-statement link at the top of the page would be useful anyhow? Levana Taylor (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Agree --- Jura 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I like that. Even for medium items it is time consuming to find the link between statements, IDs or links. Toni 001 (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Add an exception to property constraint

Hi. Can someone assist me with adding a constraint exception to wind speed (P5065) please? I want to stop the constraint errors from appearing as seen on Enercon E-126 (Q114672), but I'm not too sure how to go about with it. The exception should ideally apply to all instances of wind turbine model (Q61068529). Thank you! Rehman 14:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the qualifier scope constraint makes no sense. They agreed in May on that as well, see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2019/05#Wind_speed_tiers_of_a_wind_turbine. But no one deconstrainted the property, so I'm feeling free to do it now. --SCIdude (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Queries to explore Properties usage

Hello, to help me explore the usage of Properties in Wikidata, I thought that it would be nice to have 2 queries :

  • one to list all the properties used on all the items of a Class
  • another to list all the qualifiers used on a property in the same context (all the items of a Class)

So I wrote these 2 queries :

# Properties query for a specified Class (e.g. Q5)
SELECT ?property ?propertyLabel 
      ?item wdt:P31/wdt:279* wd:Q5 ;
            ?propertyClaim [] .
      ?property wikibase:claim ?propertyClaim .
      ?property wikibase:propertyType ?propertyType .
      FILTER ( ?propertyType != wikibase:ExternalId )
    LIMIT 100
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . }

Try it!

# Qualifiers query for a specified property (e.g. P22) and a specified class (e.g. Q5)
SELECT DISTINCT ?qualifier ?qualifierLabel WHERE {
    SELECT ?qualifier WHERE {
      [] wdt:P31/wdt:279* wd:Q5 ;
         p:P22 [ ?qualClaim [] ] .
      ?qualifier wikibase:qualifier ?qualClaim .
    LIMIT 100
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" . }

Try it!

For the Properties query, I decided to remove the ExternalIds from the list as their usage is self-explained.
These 2 queries work but I had to put limits quite low if I don't want them to timeout. Does any of you have ideas on how to make them better ?
Thanks. --Melderick (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Merging Q1637920 and Q1637920

...results in "Error: The two items cannot be merged because one of them links to the other using the properties: P1889, P1889." I don't know how to solve this. Help, please? --MaeseLeon (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Items are paleolinguistics (Q1637920) and linguistic palaeontology (Q11697471); the property is different from (P1889), which states that they are different from each other. If they are the same this statement can be removed from the items. They look the same to me, although from different points of view; Andreasmperu (talkcontribslogs) may be able to explain the difference, and whether any of the sitelinks should be moved. Peter James (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
THe spanish article looks like it wants to be about long-range linguistics in general (i.e. pre-writing linguistics, discussing both nostratic and amerind on part with austro-asiatic and afroasiatic), whereas the english one focuses specifically on quackier "world language" approaches. But asdie from that, they do seem to be kinda about the same topic. Circeus (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
There used to be two different Spanish articles (just by checking the page history), and they both seem to have been merged in the Spanish Wikipedia. Please remember to read all articles before performing a merge, and also there’s no need to delete labels and descriptions. --Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Singer from Taipei

Singer from Taipei is Chinese or Taiwanese? -- 18:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Whatever sources you can cite say about the person. ChristianKl❫ 19:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I don’t understand what you mean... I am speaking about Q71722954. -- 20:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
What ChristianKl means is that you should not make up your own characterization of the person's nationality, you should have a citable source and reference it. - Jmabel (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
It is not always that easy. A source may say "Chinese" without specifying if it is "ROC" or "DRC". The source maybe does not even talk about "nationality", but "ethnicity"? How do you tell? 622 017 074 (Hej!) 07:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
If you can't tell what they mean and its a matter of controversy, then clearly you don't have a citeable source at the level we require. - Jmabel (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Often we can know someone's citizenship, but can't know their ethnic/national identity. - Jmabel (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
We don't have a property for someone's national identity. We have one for country of citizenship (P27). That's a design decision to have a more clear standard in cases like this. If multiple countries claim a person to be their citizen (in this case ROC and DRC) you are free to add both values. ChristianKl❫ 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Help Swiss Authorities prioritize base registers and controlled vocabularies for linked open data publication

Dear all,

Bern University of Applied Sciences is currently carrying out an online consultation on behalf of the Swiss authorities to find out which base registers and controlled vocabularies maintained by government agencies should be published as linked open data.

I guess, this could be interesting in the context of Wikidata, also in view of establishing a Wikidata/Wikipedia community wish list to be submitted to other governments.

If you would like to take part in the survey (available in French and in German), you can do so through the following link:

If you have any questions regarding the survey, you may ask them here or email me at beat.estermann

Best, Beat Estermann (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #387

New page for catalogues

Hi All, I created a new page for collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to use, expand. Best, Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Would it be okay for me to add sites that doesn't have scrapers? --Trade (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We don’t have a science wikiproject !

I think it’s a good idea to create one. To help identify the scope of such a Wikiproject, I wrote a few queries to show the link between the sciences items and the object they study/describes : User:TomT0m#Sciences_and_what_they_studies. Any ideas ?

author  TomT0m / talk page 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that individual sciences have their projects I don't see the advantage. Adding more projects spreads the attention thiner. ChristianKl❫ 17:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Several stuffs, first the scope is not the same. Individual science scope is usally the object of the sciences themselves. They can’t do stuffs like specifying the relations between the sciences themselves, usually. Seconds, when there is similar questions in different sciences, if we are to maintain some kind of consistency and don’t solve similar problems in entirely different and inconsistent ways, it’s cool to have an umbrella project that give guidelines. For example, if we build rules to link sciences to their objects with properties like studies (P2578)  , there is benefit in using the same rules in all the sciences. We may not want to treat medicine specialties differently from physics subfield. This may happen if the medicine project is entirely independant to the physics one. In medicine oncology is related to cancer the same way particle physics is related to particles. But oncology is in a way also related to lung cancer, and particle physics is related to the Higgs boson, say. But do we explicitely need to represent those links ? there may be a subfield of medicine specialized into lung cancer, and physics for the lung cancer, the links may be put between what is most specific on both sides to avoid redundancy. The problematics are the same in bot case, we don’t need to think about it multiplied by all sciences. If we’re not careful this may happen and multiple inconsistent rule may be developped in physics, medecine, geology and so on. It makes queries, for example, or other information extraction, harder to write/design in the end if you don’t want to restrict yourself to only one discipline. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
A new wikiproject is useless as long the existing ones have so few contributors. This will just spread the discussions over different pages. Better centralize the discussion in one existing wikiproject and to inform the others about the discussions which can be interesting for other science fields. Snipre (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
That’s already … a lot of wikiprojects to take care of notifying. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@TomT0m: "to inform the others about the discussions which can be interesting for other science fields". Not all discussions are interesting for all science projects. But please check if all those projects are active first. I think that the majority have less than 10contributions per year. Snipre (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata needs more ways to quickly and easily pull from existing databases

As a person not familiar with coding, scripting, and data querying gibberish, I find Wikidata very daunting to navigate and edit. Editing it piecemeal is incredibly inefficient, especially when there are numerous databases already constructed with detailed data. Why must we transcribe each word of War and Peace by hand like some medieval monks when we have the technology to make a photocopy?? I'm aware of tools like SourceMD, and BNF-to-Wikidata, both of which are useful but only in limited cases. We need more like these. Short of importing complete databases (which would be great!) we need more tools available to extract existing data and populate Wikidata fields, en masse, without random games skipping about arbitrary items. For biographical data, we have so many databases covering almost any particular field (e.g. Library of Congress Authorities, Find a Grave, IMDB, Getty Union List of Artist Names), and it would be a huge benefit to the project as a whole if a new item could be created and/or missing data could be populated by simply entering URL or unique ID. And tools need to be user friendly (to non-coding lay people) and easy to find if they are to be used in any significant capacity. -Animalparty (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Most of the databases you mention are not CC-0 or public domain, so we cannot pull them in. - Jmabel (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    • You cannot copyright compilations of common knowledge, like listings in a phone book. What is the difference, copyright-wise, between me reading a database, copying and pasting data like names, birth dates, and birth places, one at a time, and having a robot or tool do it instantly? -Animalparty (talk) 06:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
      • In some jurisdictions you can. One thing is to copy a few pieces of information from imdb, another - make (semi-)automated tool that does website scraping an mass. Besides licensing question, there are issues with information quality. I've seen many incorrect gender claims in VIAF, that seems to be directly imported from wikidata. Recently we have a problem when someone mass-imported birthdates of Russian artist, and there was a mess because imdb (wrongly) assumes that everyone was on Gregorian calendar.
      • Although I do agree that we desperately need more mass-imports, I would really caution you against of "populated by simply entering URL". We have hundreds (if not thousands) properties for external Ids like Library of Congress authority ID (P244), Find A Grave memorial ID (P535), IMDb ID (P345), ULAN ID (P245), etc. "Non-coding lay people" definitely can help by specifying them for the corresponding elements. Than someone will clean it up (merge duplicates, wrong instance of (P31), etc) and only after that mass-import missing data (or specify sources for existing statements). Ghuron (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
      • See enwiki:Database right. As soon as the fact collection adds something creative, e.g. an ontology or just a specific order of the facts, this applies. --SCIdude (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Animalparty: I would be interested to know if you have had a look at OpenRefine (for instance this tutorial by Emmacarroll3)? − Pintoch (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

brevet rank

There ought to be some sort of qualifier "brevet rank," so that it could be added as a qualifier for a military rank to indicate that it was conferred by brevet (Q911283) (defined as "a warrant giving a commissioned officer a higher rank title as a reward for gallantry or meritorious conduct but without conferring the authority, precedence, or pay of real rank")? Or is there already a way of adding this qualifier? I created brevet rank (Q71840603) but haven't done anything with it. Levana Taylor (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Item deletion request

Please delete Chia Ying Tang (Q63031637). Thanks! --2001:B07:6442:8903:C073:1684:90B1:68A3 07:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki data before 2016

I am trying to load the monthly page-views data between 2002-2019 with the following query:

Unfortunately, I am getting the data only between 2016-2019. Is there any way to get the earlier data? I understand that the earlier metrics can be different. As much uniformity in the data as available -- will work for me. Any help will be much appreciated.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 01:44, 1 October 2019‎ (UTC).

"Property:P176" is broken

Fault: bread (Q7802) whines in field "manufacturer" due to missing human (Q5) in baker (Q160131). Do all professions have to be instances of human (Q5) ? Taylor 49 (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"whines"? - Jmabel (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
”causes a constraint violation”, I think. Two issues here: occupations like “baker” should definitely not be <instance of> “human”. As far as the original constraint violation, I would only use <manufacturer> for the person or company who makes a specific product, not a generic class of products. I think <fabrication method> “baking” (which in turn is <practiced by> “baker”) is a better way to capture this relationship. - PKM (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
So you suggest to avoid a direct link product -> profession and instead use 2 stages product -<fabrication method>-> method -<practiced by>-> profession ? Thanks. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that. Not all bread is produced by a baker, but all bread is produced via baking, which is practised by a baker. --SilentSpike (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
manufacturer (P176) is not a property that exists for modelling this relationship. It's not for having classes as values but concrete organizations or people (instances). ChristianKl❫ 12:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Difference between P1416 and P463?


could someone please clarify the difference between member of and affiliation? I find it very muddled, and often hesitate about which one using (typically for research labs or bar associations; see Q71976686#P463's case for instance).

I already asked on French Bistro but nobody else knew.

Thanks in advance... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC).

The point of affiliation is to have a vague property that can be used when other properties don't fit. I think a bar association usually has formal members. When it comes to research labs I think there are people who are affiliated with a research lab without having a formal membership with the lab but it's not an area where I have detailed knowledge. ChristianKl❫ 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Moldova's license plates

Right now, virtually all of the settlements and tier-1 administrative levels (communes) of Moldova (Q217) have the property licence plate code (P395) assigned, based on itwiki. Moldova does not issue district-prefixed license plates anymore, since 2015. Can I go through the Petscan list and remove the property? Or should I mark the claims as 'deprecated' and add end time (P582)=2015 as qualifier? Gikü (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

CC Laurentius. Gikü (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Presumably add end time (P582)=2015 and add a "no value" to cover the situation since then, and mark the latter as preferred, rather than deprecate something that is accurate for the time frame it covers. - Jmabel (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
On a second thought, it occurs to me that we may want to remove the claims altogether (and leave them only for districts). Moldova was prefixing its license plates by district. It wasn't doing so by settlement (as it's described now). At Property talk:P395 I read: For other entities: distinguishing signs or parts of license plate associated with the entity. "CH" code is not a distinguishing sign associated with the entity Tătărești (Q31227). It is with the entity Cahul District (Q2128882). Gikü (talk) 06:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that itwiki uses license plat codes on almost any item .. --- Jura 13:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

RFC on using data schemas for standardising data structures for subjects

Hi all

I've created a proposal for Wikidata to start using data schemas to standardise structure for data on a subject area e.g all the items on museums would use the same structure to describe basic facts about them e.g location, collection type, date opened etc. I think it would really help with quality of data, ability to find data and ease of contribution.

Please do have a look, comment, etc, I see this as the start of a discussion rather than a finished product.


--John Cummings (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

WMF community wishlist 2020

Hello all,

For your information, the community wishlist process of the Wikimedia Foundation just started. This year, they decided to focus on non-Wikipedia projects that don't have a dedicated development team, which means that Wikidata-related wishes are not included. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This year there is no possibility to add wishes for Wikidata. :( Snipre (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Undue merges and deletions


could someone help me undoing merges of Q66727680, Cliopsy (Q3428596) and congrès Cliopsy (Q72055715), which are clearly undue (these are three different entities, a congress, an association and a journal, that all match WD criterias)? Also, I would someone to restore this claim (correctly sourced) and revert this change (which is semantically wrong, as one can't be a "member" of a journal — nor of any published work in general).

Thanks, 19:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Merci à la personne qui traitera la demande de prendre connaissance de l'ensemble de la discussion sur la page de discussion de l'IP demandeuse et sur l'autre IP impliquée ( qui semble avoir un conflit d'intérêts avec Claudine Blanchard-Laville. Je suis prête à exposer les arguments qui me laissent penser qu'une seule page convient davantage (ce sont les mêmes personnes qui gèrent la revue, l'association et les congrès), cordialement, --Pierrette13 (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Faux : aucun conflit d'intérêt (on apprécierait grandement que cesse ce genre d'allégations gratuites). Et ces arguments ne tiennent évidemment pas face aux critères de notoriété. 20:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Si bien sûr, les contributeurs doivent être transparents quant aux conflits d'intérêts, que la communauté a le droit de connaître, on est bien au coeur du problème, puisque la même IP contribue à la fois sur les pages concernant l'association dont Claudine Blanchard-Laville est présidente, et sur les pages de Claudine Blanchard-Laville WP et WD, un hasard semble peu probable ; l'autre partie du problème étant la pertinence d'avoir trois pages pour une association qui publie une revue et réunit des colloques, et de cela, je doute... --Pierrette13 (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
... « Si » 🤔 ? 21:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I undid the merge (it made sens on Wikipedia but not for Wikidata) but these item still need to be checked, improved and referenced (and deleted if there is no references). Finally, Pierrette is right, any conflict of interest should be revealed and given the tenacity, there seems to be some interest. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour et merci pour cette annulation. Je suis d'accord pour dire que l'on peut améliorer ces éléments ; par contre leur notoriété est claire, au titre des critères, puisque l'élément sur le congrès comme celui sur l'association sont décrits par « des références sérieuses et disponibles publiquement » (en l'espèce, leurs notices d'autorité VIAF et BnF respectives).
Pour le reste, la « ténacité » vient tout bonnement de ce que je n'apprécie pas que mon apport contributif soit supprimé sans raison valide. 08:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

VIGNERON Merci à toi et ok pour ta décision, en attendant des sources légitimes, et comme toi pour le conflit d'intérêt probable qui devrait être indiqué, vue la "ténacité" de ces IP à lier la personne et l'association (trouvé une troisième intervention [7] qui est également la créatrice du site de Blanchard-Laville, ben voyons... --Pierrette13 (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@IP: attention, j'ai dit "need", il y a "besoin" de sources, ce n'est pas juste une possibilité. De plus, VIAF+BNF, cela ne fait qu'une seule source (la première copiant assez servilement la seconde) alors que les critères demandent explicitement plusieurs sources (et certes ce n'est pas explicitement demandé mais sérieux sous-entend des sources secondaires de qualités). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
L'assertion suivant laquelle VIAF et BnF constitueraient une seule source me semble contestable. J'ajoute que ces éléments remplissent aussi un (a minima) besoin structurel : celui sur le congrès pour décrire la nature de l'ouvrage Q72154522, et celui sur l'association pour indiquer par qui est organisé le congrès (et éventuellement par qui est publiée la revue, mais je n'ai pas trouvé l'indication de façon explicite dans le catalogue de la BnF). 08:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WikidataCon 2019 & remote access

Hello all,

The WikidataCon 2019 takes place from tomorrow, October 25th, to Saturday October 26th. 250 participants from the Wikidata community, Wikibase community and various organizations are gathering in Berlin. During these two days, a lot of interesting sessions related to Wikidata and Wikibase will take place (program).

The number of available seats for this conference was unfortunately limited, but as we wanted to make sure that the content is accessible to everyone, here's how you can follow what's happening at the conference:

  • Sessions taking place in rooms Kleist, Kepler and Einstein will be livestreamed. This means that they can be followed in real time, then accessible in replay a hours after the session, and later released under Creative Commons.
  • The streaming will take place on (at the moment, the link is not set up yet, it will be shortly before the event starts)
  • Slides of the speakers and other documents will be added by speakers in a Commons category as well as on the individual pages of the sessions (linked from the program)
  • Notes of the sessions are also linked from the sessions pages. Participants in the session should take notes in the pads, and there is a section for remote questions
  • After the event, the documentation will be collected, including blog posts, various reviews published by participants, and videos released with multilingual subtitles
  • You can follow the hashtag #WikidataCon on Twitter or other social networks. A Discord instance has also been set up by a volunteer.

If you have any question, feel free to reach me. Thanks, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Declaring the flavor of something

How would I, for example, say that vanilla ice cream is vanilla flavored? Flavors do not seem to have entries, but flavorings do, like vanilla --MoonyTheDwarf (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem when i made items about energy drinks. --Trade (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Possibly has quality (P1552), maybe with a qualifier of applies to part (P518) - flavor (Q4173974)? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if i would consider a flavor to be a quality. Perhaps it's best to create a new property. We already have plenty of items about candy and non-alcoholic beverages so using it should not be a problem. --Trade (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree on that point, how should I go about proposing/requesting a new property? --MoonyTheDwarf (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Well there we go. I think flavour is a quintessential quality ("the entity has an inherent or distinguishing non-material characteristic") of a food, and will oppose a new property on that basis. Care to explain why you think it is not a quality & hence why a new property is required? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata turker

Hello, I am a regular french Wikipédia editor and each time I move a page in Wikipedia (french version), the change of the title's page is registered in the corresponding Wikidata's item (e.g. : "Startup Studio" to "Startup studio", 21:52, 30 August 2019). The frWiki sitelink of the item's page is updated. As far as I know, this is a feature of the Wikibase. But I do not want to be credited for the automatic change in Wikidata. I disagree to release my contributions under the Creative Commons CC0 License and I simply do not want to contribute to the Wikidata project. Is there a Wikipedia account's option to stop to be forced to contribute to Wikidata while contributing to Wikipedia or to stop to be credited for an automatic Wikidata's update made by the system ? --ContributorQ (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no such option. If you edit Wikimedia projects and do stuff that affects other projects as well, as changes of interwikilinks due to page moves do, then you do not have the option to opt-out of these edits. You would otherwise leave outdated mess for interwiki users (i.e. all other Wikipedia projects). Please also mind that organizing interwikilinks usually does not create a copyright-able work anyway, so these sort of edits are in the public domain (or very close to it) anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. So, unfortunately, such an option does not exist. But my point is that I do not want to be credited for an automatic change made by the system itself. It is like a bot using my own signature/account. I chose to join the Wikipedia project and I do not want to take part in the Wikidata project. I do think that to be forced to be credited on the Wikidata project while working only for Wikipedia is a problem.
Note: when one directly makes an interwikilink's change in a Wikidata's page, the system displays the message "By clicking "publish", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License." --ContributorQ (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay I see your position, but I really cannot follow you regarding why you consider this process to be problematic. Wikipedia interwikilinks are managed at Wikidata since almost 7 years, so it is sometimes inevitable to make contact with this project as a Wikipedia editor as well. There is really no disadvantage for you if you accumulate some (automatic) edits in this project; also, you do not release your contribution under a license that is less restrictive than necessary as interwiki relations are not copyright-able as a matter of principle; furthermore, you agree to the ToS with each and every edit in Wikipedia anyways. So what's the thing here…? —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@ContributorQ: I don't recall seeing that message on Wikidata, but it was clear: Don't press publish if you disagree. User contributions are optional. Now you know that some frWp changes cause a change in Wikidata. In your case, maybe you can ask a bot to do the change for you or ask on talk page for someone else to do the move. Aside from that, I would agree that from license point of view there is nothing to worry about. You can consider the changes to be credited to a bot and your name is there just for reference to the originating change on frWp. Is that ok? You can point to this discussion if someone accused you of being active on wikidata. Jagulin (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you imagine that there is any jurisdiction under which you can copyright the act of moving "Startup Studio" to "Startup studio"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I don't see where this question is leading. What if I say "yes, I can envision that"? I don't think the question was about copyright, but contribution and credits. Are you saying that contribution and credit only covers copyrighted material? The ToS normally mention the CC-BY-SA rather than CC0. If the change history had a tag saying "automated change, no copyright claimed" it would have been more clear which parts that are CC0 and maybe the user would accept that more easily. Jagulin (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The OP includes the text "I disagree to release my contributions under the Creative Commons CC0". If that's not about copyright, I'm a banana. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand how you peel, but regardless of copyright there is something attributed to the username (as if there is something to to waive) and "contributed". Another quote is "I do not want to take part in the Wikidata project", showing that the focus for the OP was no avoid having their name in the logs, regardless of license. Jagulin (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy, Jagulin, Pigsonthewing: « don't press publish if you disagree » is a WD's warning. I use to edit WP...
There is no such a juridiction, indeed. But the WD system displays that I am an active WD editor which means that I produce data on WD and implies that I agree to release my contributions under the CC CC0 License. This is completely false. I'm not an active WD editor and one reason is that I disagree to release my contributions under the CC CC0 License. As you can check in my contribution's history on WD, I used to edit WD but I stopped contributing to WD on the 28 April 2016. At the beginning of this year, I found out, by chance, the mechanism of the automatic WD's update from WP.
And yes, I consider this process to be problematic because WP's connections with WD are spreading, slowly but surely (Wikidata Bridge has been announced). It means that some editorial actions like the move option are about to be replicated on WD or transferred to WD. The consequence for a WP editor like me will be that some WP's editorial possibilities won't be accessible anymore (« don't press publish if you disagree »). I consider this ongoing process to be a way to enroll WP editors in the WD project. I just want to edit WP, not WD. As a matter of fact, as an internet user, I want to keep control of my data's production. --ContributorQ (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

" I disagree to release my contributions under the CC CC0 License" Although you pinged me, you ignored my earlier question, so I'll ask it again here: Do you imagine that there is any jurisdiction under which you can copyright the act of moving "Startup Studio" to "Startup studio"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: "There is no such a juridiction, indeed." was probably in answer to your question. Would that alter your response? Jagulin (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, this is my answer to the question. I agree with Pigsonthewing. But the CC CC0 license is a detail (however, an important one: it is a relevant reason to not take part in the WD project), my main concern is that I do not want to contribute to WD anyway. --ContributorQ (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The revision text looks schematically like this: "User (page moved from A to B)" (with a newline after the user). I see how that can be interpreted in different ways. A clearer message could be "Page Move Bot (mirroring external action: page moved from A to B by User on Some Wiki)". Toni 001 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Toni 001: yes, the message should precisely reflect the automatic replication made by the system and not credit the original WP editor for a bot-like WD's update.
Where can I submit a technical request for a change ? --ContributorQ (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Logged in via new task at phabricator: (add a "title", a "description", and a Wikidata "tag", but leave "assigned to" and "subscribers" empty); alternatively, you can try to add a comment at Wikidata:Contact the development team, but my experience is that topics over there might at some point be moved to the archive and then forgotten. Which does not happen on phabricator, where they can "only" be ignored for a long time, or explicitly being closed as "not done" by a technician. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
A Phabricator request has been published: T236490. --ContributorQ (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Author page deleted

My nickname is NikantmarkNikantmark, I am the author of Wikidata and I created an author page with ID Q61466932. I see that my page has been deleted on 5 August 2019 SjoerddebruinItalic text. I requested information from this user about the reasons for the deletion. However, so far I have not received a response. Please tell me the details of the reasons for deleting my author page. And my question is: Before such a radical action as deleting a web page, you do not need to inform the creator or owner of this web page about probable errors that he could fix? Thank.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikantmark (talk • contribs).

You are not the owner of any Wikidata item that you create. Wikidata also doesn't exist as a place to promote yourself which seems the way you used the item in question. ChristianKl❫ 12:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To ChristianKl. I was the owner of a Wikidata item such as a representation of the marketing agency NikAnt which was also deleted. If I cannot advertise myself as the author of Wikidata and as the owner of an item, then maybe some of you can do this. If this is not possible then for what reasons?

  • Funny. Where did you get this information from? I think you are probably on the wrong website. --- Jura 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think your userpage as contributor to Wikidata is still at User:Nikantmark.
Why would you meet the notability criteria for an item? --- Jura 12:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Why should we have any interest in advertising you? Why do you think we would want you to help with advertisement? ChristianKl❫ 18:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

To ChristianKl For the same reason you help in advertising for Steve Wozniak. If an exception is made only for me personally, then What is the reason for this?

Probably because you're not notable. As Jura has suggested, study notability criteria and let us know how you measure up. If you give Steve Wozniak any serious thought, you will see that he fits the notability criterea. Comparing yourself with him, absent, for instance, being behind a behemoth computing company, shows more chutzpah than sense, and impresses precisely no-one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The purpose of the article about Steve Wozniak isn't to advertise Steve Wozniak. Advertisement is a motivation that's in conflict with goals of the Wikimedia communities and as a result we try to stay away from it and have notability guidelines which we use against people trying to self advertise. Those guidelines do consider people like Wozniak to be notable. ChristianKl❫ 17:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

P397/P398 (parent/child astronomical body)

These properties are mainly designed to describe the relation between a planet and its star or a moon and its planet. Now I have found that C/1861 G1 (Thatcher) (Q3235375) and Comet Swift–Tuttle (Q126026) have this relation with one meteor shower each. Comets are often explained as the "parent" of meteor showers. But there is in my opioion a problem with this. Comets may also have moons of their own. (We have at least one plausible moon to at least one comet.) Also ring systems around comets or comet-like bodies have been reported (at least once). The dust particles in Perseids (Q173708) are technically orbiting the Sun, not the comet. So even if the particles of the Perseids have their origin in the comet (i.e being its parent), I would speak against using this specific property. Opinions? 622 017 074 (Hej!) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sextvå.tvånoll.ettsjunoll.sjufyra You can see that the subject item of this property (P1629) of parent astronomical body (P397) is primary body (Q7243056), which is defined "main physical body of a gravitationally bound, multi-object system", so you don't need to guess if the property describes gravitational connection or physical ancestry. For ancestry other properties may be better. --SCIdude (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but which? Do we have to propose a new? 622 017 074 (Hej!) 06:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

All Sage Open articles or just a few notable ones? Determining notability for scholarly articles published in Sage Open

This is the full title for an article published in Sage Open "Autism, Personality, and Human Diversity: Defining Neurodiversity in an Iterative Process Using Aspie Quiz" that I am interested to know if it is notable enough to enter into wikidata. I don't know how to determine if it is notable.

I've read in point 2. in wikidata:notability "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."

Is Sage Open enough of a "publicly available reference" or does it need to be referenced in more places than just that? Ormemoryiremember (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the formal policy is, but given that about 10% of Wikidata seems to be scholarly articles of all kinds (and bots add them indiscriminately), I think it would be appropriate to add it. My guess is that it counts under the "structural need" criterion. Vahurzpu (talk) 02:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually 40.8% of Wikidata items are articles. The one for this particular article is Autism, Personality, and Human Diversity (Q72272328).--GZWDer (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Q71985707 as a claim of P166?


according to you, which is the more accurate property to declare Young Leader of the French American Foundation (Q71985707) on an item? I thought P166 but am not sure. Cheers, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC).

Unusually long lists in some items

@Jarekt: just pointed out some cases where commons:Template:Wikidata Infobox is timing out before rendering the infobox. I think these need cleanup/remodelling here, but I'm not entirely sure how. Is anyone interested in having a look?

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Thanks for doing these. The ice cream cone locations were added by a now-indef-blocked user; the rail station owner statements seem like a @Simon Villeneuve: thing (I recall undoing similar edits of his on Indian Railways (Q819425)); I believe Marcmiquel has come to our attention before for adding coordinates for languages based on WALS. Mahir256 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I've tried to discuss the non-symetry problem of some properties like P1830 and P4969 here and there, but it seems there's no solution for now. For now, the Wikidata community don't accept the symmetry where it imply hundred or thousands of entries (but it accept scientific articles with more than 2 000 authors ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ).
Here, do what you want, but remember that it's a bad idea to shape Wikidata to resolve an infobox problem. An infobox problem must be resolved in the infobox code. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Simon Villeneuve, I agree that " bad idea to shape Wikidata to resolve an infobox problem" but infobox problems often highlights some issue. If high number of values is legitimate, like 2000 authors, who are truly listed as authors, than I would not modify wikidata to fix infobox. However I am into fixing issues if I believe that the data makes no sense, like list of every country in the world for location (P276) of ice cream cone (Q1156634) or country (P17)=Argentina for Polish (Q809) language. --Jarekt (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently Sun (Q525) also have a cluttered list of child astronomical body (P398).--GZWDer (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

SNCF's P1830 values

@Jarekt: I'm afraid that I   a little oppose your idea to remove them at all, as it's very likely that a railway company operates so many railway lines and/or stations, should we move them to item operated (P121) instead? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Multichill (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC) -revi (talkcontribslogs)-- 01:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC) (was Hym411) User:JarrahTree (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC) A.Bernhard (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Steenth (talk) YLSS (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Konggaru (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC) Elmarbu (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC) Nitrolinken (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC) George23820 Talk‎ 17:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Daniele.Brundu (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Dannebrog Spy (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Knoxhale 18:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC) happy5214 22:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Jklamo (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits DarTar (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Sascha GPD (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC) A1AA1A (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC) Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Sam Wilson 10:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC) Danielt998 (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC) Maxim75 (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC) NCFriend (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC) Fabio Bettani (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC) Geogast (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Jc86035 (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2018 (UTC) Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC) Jinoytommanjaly (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)   Notified participants of WikiProject Railways --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that any item with thousands of items in any property is a problem. The page does not load properly and any infobox that is trying to use it runs our of memory even without trying to display them all. That makes that item more trouble than the additional stored data is worth. Maybe some more hierarchical structure could be possible. Maybe group rail-stations into lines and than the railway company can own each line. --Jarekt (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I don't see any problems on setting several values of item operated (P121) statements, other than computers' random-access memory (Q5295) when loading item pages (which is a common panorama when you're loading a country item), see e.g. East Japan Railway Company (Q499071). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Several values are OK, but several thousands break the item. --Jarekt (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge gadget kaput?

Is the merge gadget unwell? Link to it seems to have disappeared on items I look at. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems a bug. @Matěj Suchánek:.--GZWDer (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Should be back. Cache purge may be necessary. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

unknown values for people who have long-since died

Today, via a post on Reddit, it was highlighted that the google knowledge graph results for the ancient Roman senator Lucius Pinarius (Q382127) declares him to be 2085 years old. [Google result:]. Obviously, this is the result of a Google querying Wikidata, finding a birth-date and no death-date, and making an age-calculation up to the present day. The way for Google to solve this would be to add a bit of logic that ignores the age calculation if there is no death date listed (ping: Denny).

But the way for Wikidata to solve this, and potentially many other cases like it... I suggest to:
Add an "date of death (P570) -> Unknown Value" statement to all the instance of (P31) -> human (Q5) who HAVE a date of birth (P569) before 1900 AND have no date of death (P570) statement.
[Note: I have already done this for Lucius Pinarius (Q382127) so the Google graph will update eventually]

This would apply to:

Is this a good idea?

[Credit to Fuzheado for making the sparql query!] Thanks, Wittylama (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • No. Why not add actual values instead? 11:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)--- Jura
If the actual death-date were known, then yes of course that should be added. But in the absence of the specific information for each person we could at least say what we know: that they ARE dead - we just don't know when. Wittylama (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It's also obvious that they have a place of birth, a place of death, a mother, a father, a place of burial we might not have included yet. Would you check sitelinks and listed references first? --- Jura 11:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose we could be adding 'unknown value' to those other things too - technically its true, as you say. But I agree with your implication - that doing that would be overkill. My thinking is that because we have actively said there's a start-date (birth), we should make some acknowledgement of the end-date (death) - for this MOST human of facts [as they say, "...death and taxes!"].
The second part of your question - what kind of checks could/should be done before mass-adding such a statement - gets to the heart of the matter. I certainly wouldn't be manually researching each person! And this is why I broke the research into those time-groupings, because we might feel differently about adding this statement for people born 2000 BCE as opposed to born in 1899. I suspect adding the 'unknown value' statement could also serve as a case of m:Cunningham's law - by overtly saying we don't know, might encourage some people to find and include a referenced fact in some cases. Wittylama (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
That really is true for many other things as well. Currently, in most approaches, we stop looking for it once someone determined it's unknown. So we just end up closing the door for incremental additions. --- Jura 11:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the GUI rendered this as some value (the meaning it is given in the underlying software, and the usual meaning of the blank node we use to represent it in RDF), rather than unknown. This special value does not necessarily mean that it is known that nobody anywhere knows the value. It means that we know that the statement has some value, but that (for some reason) we are not currently able to state it. That can include there not presently being an item for the value, hence common idioms such as spouse (P26) = some value, stated as (P1932) = "Elizabeth Smith". It would be helpful if the software did not represent "some value" as unknown, because this can often be misleading as to what we really mean by "some value". Jheald (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Re. "unknown value" it has always been somewhat unclear how to use it:

  • Only if available sources concordantly and explicitly state that this information is generally not known to the public?
  • Or if you as a Wikidata editor have done some thorough research and did not find any public source which reports this information?

IMO, "date of death: unknown value" is still better than no "date of death" statement at all, as the latter somehow implies that the person might still be living. However, I would recommend not to batch-add such statements to items, as the "thorough research" for possibly available information cannot be automated. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

In the past, I used century precision for a date of death around the date of birth sometimes. There is pros and cons to do stuffs like that, it may help some queries for example (if, say, we want to sort accourding to a date of birth/death, it’s better to use a fuzzy date than « unknown value » in some cases.)author  TomT0m / talk page 12:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
If the associated Wikipedia articles mention it as "unknown", I think adding a century precision DOD is a good idea. However, we currently do lack a process to attempt to add more precision to dates that don't have day-precision. --- Jura 16:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

If this were a real knowledge database the human item would include a max age, and the program would infer the incorrectness of its 2000 year age deduction from it. --SCIdude (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support date_of_death=unknown_value for people over 110 years old. We have a list of supercentenarians, which is everyone over 110 years old. We can flag the known supercentenarians so that they do not get date_of_death=unknown_value. We can find most dates of death for USA people who died between 1900 and 2015 at Familysearch which has most state death records. It also has federal death records from about 1970 to the present. --RAN (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I used 120 years on Robert Bruce Douglas (Q56604483), with some qualifiers. Ghouston (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Date of birth or date of death should never ever be “unknown”. It should be some date with low precision. Multichill (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, the same would be true for the place of birth, because setting it to planet earth is always true. At the end it boils down to the question to which granularity something is still "unknown". For example, if somebody was born in Germany, the exact place of birth might still be "unknown". Going even further, for somebody born in Berlin, the exact district can be "unknown". Steak (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • If we do this - I'm not sure it's a good idea - I think we need to make sure we can distinguish between "actually unknown value" and "we simply don't have one yet, so we've put unknown in for the time being". Perhaps a sourcing-circumstances qualifier to say "automatically applied due to a long-ago birthdate", or something? Andrew Gray (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I mentioned this proposal to Multichill, and his point was allied to your concern Andrew... he noted that a birth/death date should never ever be “unknown". Rather, it should be a date with low precision. That is, to avoid the question you raise (and also Jura1's earlier point about the potential for shutting down incremental improvements), it's better to give the most accurate knowable precision rather than to declare that it's not known. If you think that's a good point - and it sounds quite accurate to me - the question is, can that be turned into a bot editing task that does something like adding a death date of "no later than" [120 years after birthdate]? Wittylama (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes and no. I think that decade or century inaccurate-precision dates are okay, but millennium-precision ones (barring deep historical dates like early Egyptian figures!) should probably be avoided - they will just confuse queries that aren't set up for complex date filtering.
      • For "no earlier than"/"no later than" dates, I presume these would be "unknown" w/ a latest date (P1326) or similar qualifier? If so, I think that would work okay. But we would still need some kind of "automatically inferred from..." sourcing qualifier. Otherwise it will become an incredible mess in the future, as we are left with trying to figure out if it's automatically calculated, or if some researcher actually went off and determined it was no later than that date for (some other reason). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if there's any real difference between "actually unknown value" and "we simply don't have one yet, so we've put unknown in for the time being". What does "actually unknown value" mean? There's always the possibility that the information is recorded somewhere, on a piece of paper in an archive or a buried stone tablet. I'm also not sure how you use a "low precision date" when the date in question is near a millennial boundary, e.g., if we aren't sure if somebody died in 1999 or 2000 (or 2000 and 2001, depending on how it's defined). Ghouston (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Ghouston: I would say that "actually unknown" is where the external sources have said "we have looked and we don't know". For example, people who outright disappeared, or historical figures who stop appearing in the records after their period of notability. Yes, it's possible that a new date might be found sometime, but for the time being we can treat it as a "known unknown".
      • That's different from someone whose date of death is presumably a matter of historical record, but where we haven't imported it yet for one reason or another. EnWP models this with categories for "year of death unknown" and "year of death missing", which is a reasonably good solution. That doesn't work for us (because missing, no P570, can also equal "still alive") but I do think we need to distinguish these two cases.
      • For the case where someone died in 1999-2001 but we're not sure when, then year=2000 + sourcing circumstances "circa" would seem more useful than millennium-precision dates. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
        • 1999/2000 perhaps isn't a great example, but the problem is still likely to occur, e.g., with somebody born in 1900, with the year increasing as time goes by. Also, a date like "2nd millennium" seems pretty strange for somebody from the 19th century, while "unknown value" is accurate as long as we haven't been able to discover a date. Whether somebody else has also looked into it, and written "I haven't been able to discover a date" on a website somewhere, doesn't seem to make much difference to me. Ghouston (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Since the currently oldest recognized living person was born in 1903, it would seem safe to declare anybody born in 1902 or earlier to be dead. However, I guess the most likely error with this approach would be if people have incorrect birth dates. Ghouston (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It's up to the data-user to decide whether he wants to count a person where we don't know anything about their death as alive or dead. I see no reason why we should make a massive amount of unsourced entries in our own database with "unknown value".
There's some value on being able to list all people who died in the 3th century and for that reason dates with century precision can sometimes be useful. ChristianKl❫ 18:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
There are over thousand people working for the knowledge graph. It seems to me like this is an issue they should be easily be able to fix without us using highest observed lifespan (P4214).ChristianKl❫ 11:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Identifier property with two or more identifiers at URL

I wanted to request a property as Identifier (URL), namely for the Comisión para el Mercado Financiero website ( The problem is, there are two relevant strings that would be used for creating a proper identifier URL, namely |rut= and |tipoentidad=:


For example,

For Administrador Financiero de Transantiago (Q5549126)

So, is technically possible with the current version of Wikibase to provide two identifiers for form one identifier URL? Thanks. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It is possible to define multiple formatter URLs based on a regex match (e.g. International Standard Identifier for Libraries (P791)) but your case seems completely two-dimensional. Is it really? --SCIdude (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. So, a regex pattern for |tipoentidad= would be enough, leaving as:
instance of (P31)
  Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637)   edit
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference

+ add value
Wikidata property example (P1855)
  Administrador Financiero de Transantiago (Q5549126)   edit
CMF identifier RGEIN-99597320
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  Administrador Financiero de Transantiago (Q5549126)   edit
CMF identifier RVEMI-90743000
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference
  Administrador Financiero de Transantiago (Q5549126)   edit
CMF identifier MERCANTIL-300068742
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference

+ add value
formatter URL (P1630)$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) RGEIN-.*
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) RVEMI-.*
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) MERCANTIL-.*
syntax clarification (P2916) Mercantil website (alternative)
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference$1   edit
format as a regular expression (P1793) .*
syntax clarification (P2916) Default expression
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference

+ add value
format as a regular expression (P1793)
  [0-9]{9}   edit
▼ 0 reference
+ add reference

+ add value

There are several |tipoentidad= values, so, I'll need to research every of them. For now, with at least one |tipoentidad= is possible to build a proper URL (but with some missing information at the target page due the bad programming). Please tell me if the patterns are well formed before I propose this property. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If the format of identifier is made-up, you should not treat it as an external identifier. Instead propose a property with "URI" datatype.
If there's other website using IDs like RGEIN-99597320, you can propose a property for it. Please notice ArthurPSmith to add it to the Wikidata External ID redirector tool.
--GZWDer (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/-revi

This is a policy-instructed notification of my candidacy for Oversight. Thank you. — regards, Revi 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

When does a statement have too many qualifiers?

What do you others think, are seven too many? I'm not sure which qualifier i should leave out if any. --Trade (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any limit, if they are relevant. But the problem you've got is that you are trying to apply qualifiers to other qualifiers, when technically I think they all apply only to the main statement. I.e, what do the determination method (P459) and retrieved (P813) qualifiers refer to? Ghouston (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ghouston: retrieved (P813) refers to the date the number of subscribers and views were retrieved. That way, others can easily know whether or not the two numbers needs to be updated. Do you think i should use point in time (P585) instead of retrieved (P813)? --Trade (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: Since the item itself is a Youtube channel, I don't think these belong as qualifiers, but rather should be "moved up" to work as normal properties? Have a look to see what I mean, feel free to revert if you disagree ;) Moebeus (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Well noticed, i kinda missed that one. Still, i'm not sure if it makes sense to repeat the link to his account. in both Official website and YouTube Channel ID. --Trade (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata and privacy

As Wikidata continues to grow it might be worth stopping up at thinking about what should not be put into Wikidata. One concern is privacy and personal data. We usually think that more data in Wikidata is better, but is this necessarily the case?

There are many properties in Wikidata where one could or should and perhaps even must (in a legal sense) restrict how they are used.

Date of birth: The birthday is personal data and can reveal the age of a person. The date of birth can be used in identity theft, see If a notable person accidentally reveals their date of birth, e.g., in a tweet, should we necessarily include that information in Wikidata? If the person has this information written on the homepage, should we included? What if the person later removes this information because of concerns of privacy? Place of birth has similar issues.

Name (given name and surname): The name of a person may be private, e.g., porn performers may work under pseudonym and publicity of their real name can expose them to stalking, see Other notable persons and academic authors that we include in Wikidata may also work and publish under one name but have another real name that they do not necessarily want to be made public simply due to privacy reasons. Also note that some artist work under pseudonym, e.g., Banksy and note that initially the "J. K." of Rowling was not known. Real names also reveal to some extent religious affiliation or roots.

Residence. Many notable people have secret address to avoid harassment. It may be that a politician has had an open address previously (listed on some public webpage) but then chooses to make the address secret. In that case, the history of Wikidata is a problem.

Gender: While indication of gender is interesting for statistics around gender bias, gender is personal data and some people may not want their gender revealed. We may think that binary gender can be inferred from a given name, but this is not always the case and should most likely be avoided.

Sexual orientation: Personal sensitive data in GDPR. The property is probably overused for people that are not heteronormative.

Citizenship: While, e.g., politicians may "automatically" reveal their citizenship when they are elected, other people will less often "automatically" reveal their citizenship. Inference based on place of birth, country of residence or country of education or employment may often be wrong, e.g., for academic authors.

Participates/Participate in: This property can reveal when the person is away from home to an event. Coupled with other information on or outside Wikidata this can be a problem, cf. thiefs choosing to break in a house during vacations of its occupants.

Telephone: Not usually added to Wikidata for persons and should probably not in most cases. Many notable people probably have secret phone number to avoid phony calls and harassments.

E-mail: Not usually added to Wikidata for persons and should probably not in most cases. Spamming is a obvious issue.

There are a number of other properties where that could be privacy issues.

We should ask ourselves whether we should start holding back on the kind of information we put in. Wikidata and its associated tools are powerful and Wikidata's data can be reused in unforeseen ways

Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • while I absolutely agree with you (I hate that other people know more about me than I know about me), nothing found on WD is secret information. It is all available from publicly available sources. The problem with WD is not a "1st hand" problem, it is the fact that other sites (sometimes the person themselves) are reporting the information that we don't need. In other words, it is a problem with the internet/media population in general. All WD does is collect the information that is already out there. Quakewoody (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
and on a personal note - the county I live in has a "property" website as part of the "court" website. This means you can go online, for free, without an account or valid reason, look up my name (or address) and find the information regarding the property(s). This includes my signature. This includes my mortgage paperwork, which has all of that information you spoke of. It even includes my SSN. If the government is doing this... privacy doesn't exist. Once upon a time, this information was available "to view". But you had to go to the court house (m-f, 9-5), show ID, state a reason, file a request, pay a fee, wait 6 weeks, and go back to the court house to view it. Not so much anymore. Quakewoody (talk) 11:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This does not mean that Wikidata, as a project, has to acknoledge all this by making those informations more visible, in principle. We are our own project and are able to set-up and enforce our own rules. The world is going into an unfortunate direction wrt. privacy in general ? We don’t have to. If the goal of Wikidata is to collect all knowledge in the world, it’s not to collect every single « information » in the world. Information is not knowledge or wishdom. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Fnielsen, Quakewoody, TomT0m: Are you aware of Wikidata:Living people? That is our current official policy on this which I think addresses your concerns for the most part - or if not maybe you have some specific suggestions for changes? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
We have thought about this and as a result we have a Living Person policy. If you think there an issue with either the policy itself or the way the policy is applied feel free to make that argument but it makes little sense to have this discussion as if we wouldn't have existing policy for this. ChristianKl❫ 21:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

rodeo (Q207703) is the sport, but is being used as the class of rodeo competitions

rodeo (Q207703) is an instance of type of sport (Q31629) which in my view makes it different from the class of rodeo competitions. However, there are four instances of it, including Festival Western de Saint-Tite (Q3070863). How should these rodeos be modelled? Should there be a class of rodeos? Should instead rodeos just be something like festivals and have some other link to rodeo (Q207703)? Calgary Stampede (Q1026682) is a famous recurring rodeo that doesn't have any connection to rodeo (Q207703), but should have, so this issue affects prominent rodeos. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)



Why can't I merge Q5369434 and Q8775293?

Best --El Pantera (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@El Pantera: Dunno. I've merged them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Thanks! --El Pantera (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Q62589316 and Q62589320

I recently came across these two links. And I am curious as to who is in charge of deciding what goes on it. Mainly because I looked at some of them and they seem a bit backwards. As example:

ISNI and VIAF are considered non-notable.
Musicbrainz and Yandex are considered notable.
Library of Congress isn't on either list.

It is easier to get onto Musicbrainz than Discogs (but Discogs is more mainstream), yet Discogs is not notable and Musicbrainz is. ISNI and VIAF aren't wikis, you can't insert yourself into them. They search certain authored sites looking for items that can be identified (they use Wikidata as one of their source sites). And if an subject has enough hits at enough places, they include it on their list. Ultimately, what we're saying is you can be notable enough to have a Wikidata page, which helps lead to an ISNI number, but the ISNI number isn't enough to get onto Wikidata?

So, I am just curious who is in charge of this stuff? Quakewoody (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm joining here with same questions. iTunes artist ID (P2850) qualified as notable for the unclear reason too. --Wolverène (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • iTunes? I have actually had to remove iTunes links (on other sites) because smaller artists often get lumped together with other smaller artists of the same name. How is that even identifiable, let alone a sign of notability. Quakewoody (talk)
  • I would love to "just change stuff". But I didn't know if there was some sort of board meeting to determine the break down. Maybe there is a reason WD doesn't like ISNI but does like Musicbrainz. Maybe I am reading the property descriptions backwards (wouldn't be the first time "official language" confused someone) and what I thought was notable actually meant non-notable. The list goes on and on.
Basically, what you're saying is, the properties are freely editable and hold no official meaning anywhere other than in our minds - but maybe help serve a purpose to some that are less familiar. At least that puts my mind at ease. I will be making a few changes as I see fit.
Unless anyone else has more input, we can archive this at anytime. Quakewoody (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I suppose there doesn't exist any artist identifiers that indicates notability? . --Trade (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Quakewoody: Wikidata has no board. Wikidata's policies are made by the community and not by WMDE which supply the underlying software. Formal policies are usually a result of Requests for Comments. In addition to RfC's we have discussions at places like the project chat where we find consensus. Discussions about the notability of items that provide some consensus also happen in Requests for Deletion and Bot approvals. Given the Wiki nature where everybody can implement changes for improvements, a person thought that they can increase clarity by adding Q62589316 and Q62589320 and those items might make it easier for newcomers to understand what we consider notable. They are however not more authoritative then discussions in Requests for Deletion. ChristianKl❫ 10:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  Comment It's not really a matter of finding one identifier more reliable or "liked" than another, but rather whether EVERY entity with that identifier deserves a wikidata item. For most identifiers that should be NO - certainly including VIAF and ISNI. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
ISNI/VIAF profiles aren't creating for totally unknown persons, or groups of persons, or another kinds of entities. It's also (relatively) hard to get these profiles even if you're e.g. known among a narrow circle of people but still being "zero" in what we're calling notability. Not every entity with these identifiers deserves a Wikipedia article, this is true, but in the case of Wikidata items these entities deserve, in 99,99% of cases at least for the structural need (WD:N #3). How many counterexamples do you know? --Wolverène (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I say delete 'em both, as they serve no realistic purpose, are subjective, and arguably not notable unto themselves: they don't seem to serve any structural need, rather a personal desire to recursively classify things. -Animalparty (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
These are definitely strange cases and I think can be removed (or replaced with "does not imply"). My understanding is that "suggest notability" was intended to be used for things like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography ID (P1415) - "an item with this identifier exists in a major scholarly reference work, and so can be assumed to fulfil criteria #2 of the notability policy, 'described using serious and publicly available references'." Andrew Gray (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Quakewoody: I've removed your addition of "implies notability" to LCCN - I think this is going a bit far. We should be conservative with what properties this is added to, and keep it for things where we would reasonably want/expect to have a Wikidata entry for everything in the external DB. Authority files like LCCN etc don't seem to qualify here. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
If we are truly saying that it should only be used in cases where all of data is notable, the list needs to be much much shorter and there really needs to be what i mentioned above, a board meeting to approve what goes on it and it shouldn't be open to editing by us commoners.
And the inverse property would be - this is never used to prove notability. But that list would be much too long to even bother having, as it would be almost everything on WD.
Maybe a few things could exist in the middle, does not imply automatic notability but is grounds for rejecting a "speedy delete". That is where things like ISNI, LoC, and VIAF can apply. If those places have identified someone using their criteria, they may not be WD notable, but we should look into why they have that information before deleting. Something like that could be useful as I have many times seen a name come up on the "deletion" list, who's item wasn't very well filled out, but I filled in information and saved them. Quakewoody (talk)
Agree the list should be shorter, but there isn't really anything anything on Wikidata that requires a "board meeting" - for one thing, we don't have such a board! Andrew Gray (talk) 12:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Embedding query result in wikimedia page

The code for embedding a query result in an iframe currently doesn't work on wikimedia wikis. Is there any way to embed such outputs on metawiki? e.g.:

<iframe style="width: 80vw; height: 50vh; border: none;" src="" referrerpolicy="origin" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups" ></iframe>

<iframe style="width:100%; height: 400px; border: 0;" src=""></iframe>

Any ideas? I'd love to embed the above into meta:Wikimedian in residence as true query results rather than screenshots! T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to directly embed query into wikimedia page, but you can use meta:Template:Wikidata list, so User:ListeriaBot will update results periodically --Ghuron (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata Seventh Birthday data-thon (India) starts 31 October 2019

A Wikidata data-thon (India) will be conducted between 31 October 2019 and 3 November 2019 to celebrate the Seventh Birthday of the project. Please have a look at the event page and please consider joining if you are interested. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

short description

For the movie Pulp Fiction (as an example)

  • 1994 film directed by Quentin Tarantino or
  • 1994 film

which is better? I see both used, and if I'm going to keep importing short descriptions - let me know what is best. Thanks Ched (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I think a short description with a few pieces of identifying pieces of information is generally better than one that is vague (e.g. why not "film" or "creative work" or "expression"?) —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • See Help:Description, I would say the former is better because it provides more distinguishing information --SilentSpike (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I usually use "1984 film by XYZ". "film" alone wouldn't be enough, since there are many instances of films with the same name. And using only the year isn't enough in various cases, since sometimes films of similar titles are released close to each other (especially since years also are often not quite exact due to different publications/databases using different dates: end of production/first screening at a film festival/theatrical release, etc.). So year + film + director is probably the best way to avoid conflicts and help people find what they're looking for. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The Simpsons character
  • character from The Simpsons
  • fictional character from The Simpsons
  • fictional character from the animated television show The Simpsons

Which one do you others prefer? --Trade (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The last, since it works also for obscure TV shows. Ghouston (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #388 & Wikidata Birthday

Missing image / image wanted

How do I add a "missing image" or "image wanted" property to a wikidata entry, for example Q20740569? --Scantasyundfiencefiction (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • That doesn't seem to be a fact about the topic of the item, that is a fact about the item itself. - Jmabel (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations and unreliable sources

On English Wikipedia some websites such as The Daily Mail have been deemed to unreliable to be used as citations. Give that i sometimes find myself using The Daily Mail to source statements i wanted to hear if the same rule applies to Wikidata. --Trade (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

stated in (P248) is a general property for where the data comes from. Not all sources cited in Wikidata are reliable (some are open-wikis; previously we use imported from Wikimedia project (P143) for mass imports from all kinds, but now it's limited to Wikimedia projects). We does need some way to indicate the reliablity of the sources.--GZWDer (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
RfC's on the English Wikipedia only bind the English Wikipedia. Different Wikipedia's have different standards about what sources they consider reliable and Wikidata wants everyone to be able to store their data on Wikidata. ChristianKl❫ 10:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
WD doesn't say what is true or what right, so you can continue to add statements based on The Daily Mail BUT please add the source correctly to be able to filter the statements (WP:en has to be able to filter the statements form The Daily Mail to prevent their display in their articles) and please consider the remarks of the RfC to have a critical approach about information from The Daily Mail. I think a ban if often an strong position, and a correct position is often something in the middle of a total acceptance and complete reject of a source. Snipre (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
So you are saying i should link directly to the news article as opposed to use stated in (P248) to link to the news article item? --Trade (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@Trade: Please have a look at Help:Sources#Scientific,_newspaper_or_magazine_article to learn how to source statement. It is important to be able to find the name of the newspaper in the article item using P1433. Snipre (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Snipre: Is this alright? We should really add a constraint regarding the use of P1433 to cite news articles. --Trade (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Brother may be a "sibling" but not sister

Can we please remedy this? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

None of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of sibling suggest it is gendered [8]. What exactly is there to remedy? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
At issue is that we allow all kinds of relations INCLUDING brother but not sister. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
In addition since when is an English dictionary deciding how we use our distinctly multi lingual project ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It's sensible to use an English dictionary to apprehend the meaning of an English word. As normal, I find it hard to make any sense of your complaint. By way of example, shows sisterly relations. So. English word, meaning, in essence, brotherly or sisterly relation: check. Property used to show a sisterly relation: check. Please try again to explain what it is that you see as the problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Note the last two sentences of the message contained in this diff. Mahir256 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The wording of the original complaint is so vague I don't understand which of two opposite statements you are making. Are you saying a sister should or shouldn't be counted as a sibling? As far as I know, sibling is a gender-neutral term and a sister is a sibling. - Jmabel (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Not when you look at the restrictions. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be saying when I "look at the restrictions", sibling will cease to be gender-neutral but, offhand, that sounds absurd. What am I missing? - Jmabel (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
When you add a sibling you may add the type of sibling .. brother but not sister GerardM (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess I still don't get this, so I tried an example. We already had the sibling relationship between Lawney Reyes (Q6503700) and Bernie Whitebear (Q11328585). I just connected both as siblings to Luana Reyes (Q6694994). I didn't see any particular opportunity to indicate "type of sibling" at all. What am I missing? - Jmabel (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Possibly a misunderstanding. sister (Q595094) says "Avoid using with P1038, use sibling (P3373) instead" in its description; nothing similar in brother (Q10861465). Peter James (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new Lexeme: List of valid languages

Hello Wikidata community,

i recently tried to create a lexem using the Ladin language. Unfortunately this language cannot be selected, although there is an ISO 639-3 language code "lld". Am I doing something wrong or could someone help me with my problem?

Thank you very much Markus

Hi VerbaAlpina,
In theory, you're doing it right ! In practice, for various reasons, only a small fractions of the ISO 639-3 code are accepted. Using mis was good but using the private area mis-x-Q36202 is even better (Q36202 being Ladin (Q36202)).
PS: for all discussion related to lexemes, Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data is the best place to go.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Brother may be a "sibling" but not sister

Can we please remedy this? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

None of the Oxford English Dictionary definitions of sibling suggest it is gendered [9]. What exactly is there to remedy? --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
At issue is that we allow all kinds of relations INCLUDING brother but not sister. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
In addition since when is an English dictionary deciding how we use our distinctly multi lingual project ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
It's sensible to use an English dictionary to apprehend the meaning of an English word. As normal, I find it hard to make any sense of your complaint. By way of example, shows sisterly relations. So. English word, meaning, in essence, brotherly or sisterly relation: check. Property used to show a sisterly relation: check. Please try again to explain what it is that you see as the problem. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Note the last two sentences of the message contained in this diff. Mahir256 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The wording of the original complaint is so vague I don't understand which of two opposite statements you are making. Are you saying a sister should or shouldn't be counted as a sibling? As far as I know, sibling is a gender-neutral term and a sister is a sibling. - Jmabel (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Not when you look at the restrictions. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be saying when I "look at the restrictions", sibling will cease to be gender-neutral but, offhand, that sounds absurd. What am I missing? - Jmabel (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
When you add a sibling you may add the type of sibling .. brother but not sister GerardM (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess I still don't get this, so I tried an example. We already had the sibling relationship between Lawney Reyes (Q6503700) and Bernie Whitebear (Q11328585). I just connected both as siblings to Luana Reyes (Q6694994). I didn't see any particular opportunity to indicate "type of sibling" at all. What am I missing? - Jmabel (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Possibly a misunderstanding. sister (Q595094) says "Avoid using with P1038, use sibling (P3373) instead" in its description; nothing similar in brother (Q10861465). Peter James (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How do you cite a book, especially with a remark?

How do you cite a book, and where should I have been able to find a answer to that? In the English-language Wikipedia, I cited the sibling relationships among Lawney Reyes (Q6503700), Bernie Whitebear (Q11328585), and Luana Reyes (Q6694994) as "Various mentions in Lawney Reyes's several memoirs, but see especially Reyes 2006, p. 94–102 about his father, sister, and brother performing in vaudeville" (Reyes 2006 being Lawney L. Reyes, Bernie Whitebear: An Urban Indian's Quest for Justice, University of Arizona, 2006. ISBN 0-8165-2521-8. ISBN 978-0-8165-2521-8.) I suppose the quoted Wikipedia phrasing could be reduced to p. 94–102, but still: how do I do this? - Jmabel (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: To cite a book you need to create an item for the book (which would have the title and other metadata like ISBN etc.); then cite the book item with stated in (P248) and add page(s) (P304) with the page details. See Help:Sources for more details. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: But to add a book, there is that whole morass of written work (Q47461344) vs. version, edition, or translation (Q3331189). Do we have no tools to shortcut any of this starting from, say, the ISBN? This seems insanely cumbersome compared to citing in Wikipedia. - Jmabel (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Once created, it will work for all items. You wont have to repeat it on every article .. ;)
I thought WMF devs were working on the Wikipedia tool to make it use/create items. --- Jura 20:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

empty encyclopedia

Now for the 10th time I was tempted to click on a Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) link to see ads and... nothing. Who did such an import? I consider any empty page an obsolete ID and will remove those IDs unless I get my share of the ad money. Or is there a real reason to support this scam? --SCIdude (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to presume that had you provided a link to the item on which you found a P1417, we could have looked at its history to answer the whodunnit question. It's probably better to deprecate a broken EB link, ideally adding a reason for deprecation (P2241) qualifier, than to remove it, since the probabilty exists that in its absence it might get re-added. I recognise this is not, but you might wish to assume good faith on the part of whoever added the link; not least, the possibility exists that an EB resource which existed at the time of the property addition has subsequently been removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for the thoughtless posting. Whenever I'll return to the subject I'll give more data. --SCIdude (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SCIdude (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Very wide image

The image for Bayeux Tapestry (Q187483) is so wide compared to its height that it appears as a line in lists and queries. I'd like to use an image that can actually be seen without removing the image of the complete artwork. How would you handle this? - PKM (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SCIdude (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Pontormo (Q207929) / Q55141729

Item Pontormo (Q207929) is the main item for the painter Jacopo Pontormo.

Item Q55141729 I am not clear about. I presume it's for some real-world object, i.e. a statue or some such, and therefore should not be merged with Pontormo (Q207929); but there are no coordinates on it, or depiction of it, or statement as to what exactly it is; and the linked data item sheds no more light.

It seems to have been created on the basis of as part of an upload for WLM by User:AlessioMela's bot.

If anyone is familiar with, can you confirm that this is indeed for a heritage object? Otherwise, if this is a duplicate item for Q207929, are there any similar duplicate items that may also have been created the same way? Jheald (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Surely, though the p31 value is odd. Why not ask him? --- Jura 19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge ?

Hi. I think bookmobile (Q720920) and Q72753876 should be merged... --TwoWings (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@TwoWings: I think not, not all mobile libraries are buses (even if indeed most are). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The first item has the label "bookmobile", which is the same as "bibliobus" according to BNCF - although "bus" is in the name that doesn't mean it's a type of bus. Bookmobile either has various definitions or is used misleadingly in the English Wikipedia - mobile library would probably be a better label for Q720920. Peter James (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I think one could use instance of bookmobile (Q720920) and has part bus (Q5638), or something like that. I don't think it would be worth building a subclass hierarchy for all the types of vehicles that may be used. Ghouston (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new Lexeme: List of valid languages

Hello Wikidata community,

i recently tried to create a lexem using the Ladin language. Unfortunately this language cannot be selected, although there is an ISO 639-3 language code "lld". Am I doing something wrong or could someone help me with my problem?

Thank you very much Markus

Hi VerbaAlpina,
In theory, you're doing it right ! In practice, for various reasons, only a small fractions of the ISO 639-3 code are accepted. Using mis was good but using the private area mis-x-Q36202 is even better (Q36202 being Ladin (Q36202)).
PS: for all discussion related to lexemes, Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data is the best place to go.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Syntax for language subtags and scripts (BCP47)

Content of this table is generated by bot. Interestingly, the scripts are in lower case in stead of sentence case, per W3C BCP47

When I searched one example, zh-Hant, Q18130932, the IETF identifier shows the syntax properly. But Wikidata description does not. See [[10]].

What is the procedures where the discrepancy can be reconciled per BCP47?

jshieh (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Aren't they case insensitive?
WMF/Wikidata uses Q18130932#P424, not Q18130932#P305. --- Jura 19:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How to add suggested qualifiers for a property

When adding a qualifier to an occupation (P106), the dropdown menu suggests three example qualifiers (start, end and point in time). How does one change what is included in that suggestion list? I would like to set up Wikimedian in Residence (Q3809586) such that whenever someone adds it as an occupation, the suggested qualifiers are Property:P108, Property:P937, Property:P2699, Property:P580, Property:P582. Is something like that possible? T.Shafee(evo&evo) (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Help with Armenian

Can someone please replace the transliterated Armenian "native label" (konker or konk'er) with the proper Armenian script on epigonation (Q763598), and add an Armenian label and description for the item? Thanks! - PKM (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) GeoO Tobias1984 Emptyfear Kareyac Xelgen ԱշոտՏՆՂ Beko

  Notified participants of WikiProject Armenia --Wolverène (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done, - Kareyac (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Kareyac: thank you! - PKM (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SCIdude (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Modelling topic of protests

I am looking for a way to link protests to the subject/object they are protesting for/against.
I am thinking about something like this:

Are there any comments on this way to model this? --GPSLeo (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

One may use
. And in opposition to (P5004) is ready for demonstrations against. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
objective of project or action (P3712) seems like it could be useful as well. Vahurzpu (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I will try it with objective of project or action (P3712) and in opposition to (P5004). --GPSLeo (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. SCIdude (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

How to define the usage of land over which an onshore wind farm is built upon?

Following this discussion on enwiki, what is the ideal way to define the above? For instance, wind farm land usually have alternative uses, such as cultivation, cattle farming, etc. Rehman 15:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If the Wikidata item was for a plot of land, then it would be easy to add multiple use (P366) statements. But when the item is for a wind farm, the necessary property would be "co-use", or some such. Well, co-use isn't right either, because it's not the wind farm itself that has a secondary use. It would be something like shares-land-with. Ghouston (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess one may just use multiple instance of (P31) statements, one for the wind farm and one for the land use. When this is done, one may add The Wind Power farm ID (P7344) to the item if it's still missing. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Rehman ArthurPSmith Katjos Te750iv Jklamo Dhx1 Scott Davis Andber08

  Notified participants of WikiProject Energy, Ghouston, Thierry Caro, and others reading: How about simply using located on terrain feature (P706)? With values such as agriculture (Q11451), cattle breeding (Q2153464), or wilderness (Q911871). Would that go against any best practices? Rehman 08:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

If I read the constraints properly, the values of located on terrain feature (P706) should be instances of landform (Q271669) or its subclasses. We need something that could take a value of industry (Q8148) or environment (Q2249676) --ScottDavis (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe territory overlaps (P3179) ? ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding a qualifier without creating duplicate statements + short questions

Hello everyone, is it possible to add a replaced by (P1366) property to municipality of the Netherlands (Q2039348) without creating another statement (Not by hand)? I would like to add these to the dutch municipalities, but using openrefine or quickstatements would make double municipality of the Netherlands (Q2039348) statements (one with replaced by and the already present one). What would be the best way to approach this problem?

Here is my query:

+Is it possible to filter the municipalities by name, so that the query would only show for example Amsterdam (Q9899)? Can I also make the query show certain years from population (P1082)? For example 2017, 18 and 19 as seperate fields? Here is my query for populations

Thanks for the help! Antoni1626 (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Antoni1626: I believe Quickstatements will add the qualifier to the existing statement, not make a new one. You should probably test this with a single case. The other option is to explicitly delete the existing statement, but I don't think that's necessary. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Properties for politicians' connections

It occurs to me there's some significant potential for Wikidata in enhancing public knowledge of political candidates. There's a large amount of data that seems potentially very useful for querying, for example, which US Presidential candidates have received money from a particular lobbying group, or, if some NGO were involved in a scandal, a query to pull a last of past and present board members that currently hold political office.

Has anyone worked on this sort of project before? I'm sure there are properties to track something like "member of" for board of directors, but what about "received donation from" or something like that? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • This could quickly get into subjective areas. "Scandal" is entirely subjective. Receiving a campaign donation from an individual or organization is objective, but what "lobbying group" might be behind that individual or organization is not.
  • In terms of U.S.: in general, campaign donations are public record, and certainly there are sites that track them, so that part presumably is possible. - Jmabel (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    • OpenSecrets from the Center for Responsive Politics has some open data (limited by noncommercial restrictions, though) concerning e.g. donations. It seems straightforward to keep that objective. The NC restriction would seem to make it incompatible with Wikidata in bulk form, but perhaps it could still be used as a reference with specific data entered manually. The question is whether we have properties to go with it. We have a couple identifiers based on OpenSecrets, but that's all I see. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would be very cautious about us hosting donation data because of the sheer volume of data potentially involved - prominent politicians could have hundreds or more "significant" donors, esp from companies in the US. This gets into the level of things like recording politicians' votes, which is definitely a great thing to be done but Wikidata wouldn't be suitable for it due to the granularity and volume of the data. It might be better to think about how we can make WD tie up nicely with the projects that are already tracking this information. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Andrew Gray: Could you say more about why Wikidata wouldn't be suitable for it? Are there technical limitations, or is it one of scope? In other words, if it's a potentially very useful function of a database like this, why restrict it? For the sake of discussion, we can focus on the voting records, since that's probably easier to quantify. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Filling items with loads of data can have negative effects such as longer loading times and freezing people's internet browser. Try and open United States of America (Q30) and count the number of seconds it takes for the page to load, the edit button to appear and for the changes you make to take place. --Trade (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it takes a while, which does suggest that adding many more statements would be a burden. Is this something that can be resolved, or is it an insurmountable limitation of the software? Is that amount of time also a factor when querying, or just when loading an item for display in a browser? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
For bulk data, it's recommended to use Commons. Maybe they can take details of payments to politicians in increments of 50 USD up to an amount of USD 2800. --- Jura 21:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Swan vs. cygnus

I believe that swan (Q34384) and Cygnus (Q29564928) should be merged, but I'm not sure-- something wacky seems to be happening in Can any Japanese speakers explain the difference between the Japanese items? Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Marking 2000+ identifiers as deprecated (and add relevant qualifier)


The IDs previously used for Nintendo of America Game Store ID (former scheme) (P4685) have been retired in favour of a new format, and do not resolve anymore (we have started using the new IDs, the formatter URL is the same).

Following up on this discussion, I would like to change the rank of all old IDs to Deprecated and add - reason for deprecation (P2241) withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764). Any recommendations on how to best do that? (according to docs QuickStatements does not support adding Ranks).

Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, probably the easiest (only?) way to do this is via a bot edit. If you don't want to write the script and get bot approval yourself, you could make a request for it at Wikidata:Bot_requests. --SilentSpike (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jean-Frédéric: Identifiers shouldn't be changed or "updated". If the scheme changes, the optimal approach is to create a new property of the new identifier. --- Jura 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    What do you mean by `schema`? If you mean the formatter URL, then it has not changed. If you mean the IDs, then what is the purpose of withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764)? Jean-Fred (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The formatting scheme of the identifier. I don't know what withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) is meant for. I doubt it should be used if an entire property becomes "historic". --- Jura 17:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
      withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) is used on over 1800 items, so it’s not quite a fringe use-case. Can you point out to a previous discussion/case where your recommended course of action was used?
      I disagree with your change over at Nintendo of America Game Store ID (former scheme) (P4685) − what sense does it make to mark the formatter URL (P1630) as deprecated − while the 'new' URL is… the same?
      As far as I remember, the so-called 'new' IDs have been around for ages − new items were added to the catalogue with the 'new' format, and eventually they replaced old ones. Given that we have already been using P4685 for the 'new' IDs for a while now, it makes little sense to move them to a new property (assuming that it is what you suggest).
      Jean-Fred (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      • External identifier properties are meant to be for stable identifiers and users should be able to rely on them. If Wikidata users change them around arbitrarily or updated them to new pages, users can't do that.
      I'm not aware of Wikidata policy that suggests deleting content. Ranks are described at Help:Ranking: deprecated ranks would be for identifiers that were never correct.
      The other day someone tried to do something similar with NLP ID (unique) (P1695) and in the subsequent discussion it was found that they were merely using a different identifier. It sometimes happens that users add values to properties that should have been added with another property. This is something that can be fixed. --- Jura 18:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      “I'm not aware of Wikidata policy that suggests deleting content.” → Not sure I get you − nobody has suggested to delete any content.
      “deprecated ranks would be for identifiers that were never correct.” → Then, again, what about - reason for deprecation (P2241) withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) and its siblings.
      Jean-Fred (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      - reason for deprecation (P2241) withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) is bad style in most cases, and it should not be used here. Either the items with the old property get the new identifiers as a second value for the old property with preferred rank (and the old identifiers keep normal rank, as identifiers are not "invalidated" by withdrawal or so), or Jura's approach with a completely new property should be taken. In this case I could live with usage of the old property as well, as the formatter URL has not changed and the old and new identifier format are so different that there will not be any re-use of old identifiers in the new format, if I understand correctly. Yet, a new property would also be okay for me.
      Mind that identifiers' main purpose is identification. The link to the external resource is nice, but not a requirement for an identifier to be "valid". Thus, the old identifiers might not be pointing to any content any longer, but they still identify the entities on which they are used. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      I was about to back-pedal on this − giving it more thought, I agree that Deprecated is weird form for this case, and agree with rather using “Preferred rank”. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't see the advantage of combing an UUID type identifier in the same property as a more descriptive one. It also complicates mapping to urn:uuid --- Jura 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
        Do we do URN mapping anywhere? The old format does not seem to be UUID, so there won't be a mapping possible anyways if I understand correctly. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        • The 32/36-character-sequences do look like. There is URN formatter (P7470), surprisingly it works better than I had first imagined. --- Jura 09:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
          Ah, thanks.
          Really not a expert here, but the 32 character sequences do not look like UUIDs at all. It is some sort of a string containing alphanumerics and hyphens/underscores, probably generated by some hash algorithm or so. They make up most of the "old" identifiers of this property. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Tattoo: image vs. process

Should tattooing (Q43006) be broken into one item for the process and another item for the resulting image? I came across this while looking for a model for manicure (process) vs. nail art (resulting image, in at least some manicures). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I’d say yes. - PKM (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes Snipre (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@PKM, Snipre: Actually, should this be three items? I see this problem elsewhere as well. I think what we really have is tattooing (art form), tattoo (image), and tattooing (technique). This is like cinema (art form) -- cinema (Q16144339), movie (image) -- film (Q11424), and filming (technique) shooting (Q4447845). Or painting (art form) -- art of painting (Q11629), painting (image) -- painting (Q3305213), and painting (technique) -- combined in art of painting (Q11629)? (maybe not ideal). Thoughts? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Other examples of things that probably should be triads but in many cases are confused/overlapping: art of sculpture (Q11634), sculpture (Q860861), shaping process (Q1651044); music (Q638), musical work (Q2188189), musical composition (Q207628); literature (Q8242), literary work (Q7725634), writing (Q37260). Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I have some difficulties to see the difference between tattooing (art form) and tattooing (technique). But if you can provide a really clear definition for each concept, no problem. Snipre (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There is indubitably a component that is neither the techniques involved in tatooing itself, nor a tattoo as such, but in this case it happens that tattooing is not normally viewed as an art form, and this cultural component is lacking in terminology. It is better related to fashion (Q12684) than to art (Q735), probably. Circeus (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

External Identifiers - expanding statements, best practice

Hi All,

I would like to propose an update on the use of statements regarding external identifiers in order to make the future use of these IDs here and on Wikipedia easier. After the changes are agreed on, this could take the form of a best practice page for IDs (eg. Help:External identifiers.

Some of the proposed properties are new, some already exist but would need to be added to most IDs.

  • language (P407): language(s) of the site
  • language formatter URL (qualifier for language) - alternative formatter or url for the same entry in different languages
    • Many catalogues are multilingual, and including the formatters for all languages would enable Wikipedia templates to use the appropriate language entry automatically. Usually the difference in the URL is consistent ([11] vs. [12], [13] vs [14]) but sometimes the title is completely different ([15] vs [16]) I guess if the difference in URL is according to a logic then the alternative formatter can be added to the ID's property, if the titles are completely different then it needs to be added as a language qualifier to the subject item’s ID value.
  • title (P1476): Multilingual sites have different names for each language too. (Svenskt kvinnobiografiskt lexikon vs Biographical Dictionary of Swedish Women)
  • is it being updated/expanded: If the project is active or and old relic. Values: updated, abandoned (or sth), complete
  • online: Values: yes, archived
  • archive URL formatter: for entries archived in the Internet Archive
    • This way deleted sites wouldn’t be lost (this one for example has many items added on Mix’n’match: [17] vs [18]). It could also encourage creating properties for online encyclopedias which only exist in archived form.
  • catalogue type: Values: encyclopedia, library authority file, virtual exhibition item, film database, digital library etc.
  • data subject type: Values: person, location, taxon, artwork, misc., etc.
  • content type: Values: text, data, image, film
  • text type: Values: informative, data
    • What I would like to do here is to create a property which helps identifying sources which can serve as further reading in a Wikipedia article or for new article creation. Usually these are encyclopedias, lexicons but some museum or gallery sites also have detailed artist biographies.
  • access: Values: free, free with registration, free preview only, subscription, institutions only
  • print version: eg. Wikidata ID of print version of an online encyclopedia
  • licence (P275): CC 0, etc.
  • main subject P921
  • regional scope: for state or city lexicons
  • developer: Encyclopedia of Alabama → Alabama Humanities Foundation and Auburn University
  • developer institution type: Values: museum, university, library, private, community, company
    • This could be used for quality assessment, it shows what kind of institution is responsible for the data.
  • external identifiers connected: What other catalogues are referenced in the data on this site. For example the beacon links in Bach Digital ([19], the references in Deutsche Biographie ([20]) or the library authority IDs contained in VIAF. Perhaps this could help with data mining or Mix'n'match identification?

Let me know what you think (@Magnus Manske:, @Trivialist:, @Gerwoman:, @Jean-Frédéric:, @Diggr:, @Thierry Caro:, @Kristbaum: etc), what you'd change, expand, name differently, what should be the next step, etc. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Harangozó: In general I like the idea of supplementing the properties identifiers can/should have. The idea of a "language formatter URL" with language qualifier might be particularly helpful for a number of id's we already have - on the other hand couldn't this be done with the existing "formatter URL" property using a standard for the qualifier property? Similarly I think a bunch of the others could be handled by existing properties... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I agree, wherever possible it would be good to use already existing properties. Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't "subject item of this property" point to the item that has most if not all details? Not sure about the way the language formatters would work. I suppose we would have to remove the current url formatter .. BTW, if the string is different, it's probably not an external identifier in the first place. --- Jura 19:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jura1: I was also thinking if these would be better placed in the subject item but I don't know how it works, maybe it's easier to pull the details from the property. Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The way we use "subject item of this property" is a mess, because instead of pointing to items about the identifier, we often point to items about a database, or an issuing organisation, or whatever. We need to clean that up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Section break

My proposal:

  • The external project relationship with Wikidata?
    • IF "importing from wikidata" - THEN be careful; and don't import/re-import anything blindly ('external identifiers',labels,...)! importing only for the experts and project members! ( Example: Who's on First ID (P6766) ;the data lifecycle is complex ; the data cleaning is ongoing , and lot of "Unintended consequences" ... ) so need some "Warning"!

--ImreSamu (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Adam Harangozó: specifying different formatter URLs depending on the language is already possible: see for instance Structurae structure ID (P454) for how it is done. However that is not supported by the software (Wikidata will not use the appropriate formatter URL depending on the user's language). − Pintoch (talk) 09:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pintoch: I didn't know, that's great! Even if it's not supported at the moment, it can be useful for Wikipedia templates. Adam Harangozó (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it would be good to discuss this on a new page and develop a draft. This proposal seems to me like it's made while ignoring our existing system. At least there's no justification for properties we currently consider important such as examples and subject item aren't specified. The proposal seems to be made in a spirit of expecting that people will generally put in the work to bring identifier properties to confirm to the standard and given the existing status of how we deal with those properties that seems too optimistic (see ). ChristianKl❫ 16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd agree to discuss this on a new page. One particular propertiy suggested - "access" - can use the access status (P6954) qualifier, which comes with a one-of constraint with values overlapping with the list given above. --Jneubert (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi All, I've created a site listing the current use of properties for external IDs: Wikidata:External identifiers. And on the talk page you can find my proposition for expanding the list, we can continue the discussion there (@ArthurPSmith:, @Jura1:, @Pigsonthewing:, @Pintoch:, @ChristianKl:, @Jneubert:): Wikidata talk:External identifiers. --Adam Harangozó (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

What's a World Heritage site?

In terms of instance of (P31) (or subclass of (P279) values), what is a World Heritage site?

It seems to me that there are essentially two views:

  1. either it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Q9259)
  2. or it's something else (e.g. a series of buildings, a site of natural beauty)

A third view could be a mix of the above.

For an initial discussion, let's ignore the fact that a site has one or several listed components.

If interested, you might also want to review Wikidata:Property proposal/protected region scheme or World Heritage Site ID (P757). --- Jura 07:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

It is (or it should be) UNESCO World Heritage Site (Q9259)--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It is (or it should be) something else, but with heritage designation (P1435)=UNESCO World Heritage Site (Q9259). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)