Wikidata

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2021/10

< Wikidata:Project chat‎ | Archive‎ | 2021
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Opposite of Alexander the Great

Turkish poet küçük İskender (1964–2019) used the pen name Küçük İskender (in Turkish Alexander the Great is Büyük İskender; this pseudonym means Alexander the petty, the minor or petty Alexander...?) -I believe- in allegory to Alexander the Great. Indeed his first work was titled "Who killed Alexander?" He even chose to use his pseudonym as "küçük İskender" -without capitalization of the first word. Is there a way to establish such a relationship between the two men? --E4024 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@E4024 I'm not exactly sure, perhaps named after (P138) with some kind of qualifier. However, "-I believe-" is not much of a source, it would be better if there was a reference for it, even if there is an absolutely correct way to capture the data. Inductiveload (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
No, I do not have a good source for what I said "I believe". I was/am curious though how to formulate such cases. I mean we could take it as a "probable case" and if we see a similar one later, sourced, know how to relate that kind of relationship to the concerned items. Thanks for your input. --E4024 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

ترس از تکامل

چرا از تکامل زمین جلوگیری شد؟ (ArMaN Omm) (1/10/2021)

  • Google Translate says: "Why was the evolution of the earth prevented?" I guess this section (my talk included) may be deleted or archived. --E4024 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible or a good idea

I wanted to really wuick say congratulations on the matter of the scale of this project you all have created, 95,231,895 pages, and thats not including talk pages, redirects, etc. Thats really impressive! as a contributor to multiple wikis, i havent seen a project the size of this one, but i wanted to point out the main page states theres only 95,230,921, still flaunts masculinity but i wondered if there was any way one could create an automatic counter of said number, both on the statistics page and the main page? I believe it would be a simple undertaking, but useful at the same time. So far i have enjoyed my time here, and much love - Feena --Aqua (feena) (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's causing the discrepancy but between those two numbers but I don't think it being slightly off is that big of a deal. do remember that our size is misleading since many many of the entries were made and only edited by bots. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Where did you get 95,231,895 from?
Interestingly it reads "items" on main page, but these are 94.6 mio items [1] and 0.6 mio lexemes [2]. --- Jura 08:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Aqua (feena): Notable redirects are linked to Wikidata items. Eurohunter (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

African United Nation Ambassadors

I applied for a project subject to comments as follows: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid/kid_keen_47/African_United_Nation_Ambassadors#Activities --Kid Keen 47 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

DGen and Category:DGen

There are two items DGen (Q10263584 - instance of (P31) video game console emulator (Q1196126)) and it's Category:DGen (Q? instance of (P31) Wikimedia category (Q4167836)) but item for Category:DGen was deleted (?) and @BrokenSegue: incorrectly mixed interwiki from two items without reason (I mentioned in history page that item for DGen and item for cateory should not be mixed. Eurohunter (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: it was my understanding that commons categories are not treated the same as other categories. Which I believed to mean (1) a commons category is not sufficient to keep a item from deletion (2) it is ok to mix commons categories with non-categories. It was my understanding we were to use Commons category (P373) to attach a category to an item but only if there is also a commons page for the item (though I think this is controversial given the constant nomination for deletion). I cannot find policy documents outlining this but it was my understanding from past experience. This very old RfC is the best I can find. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
@Eurohunter, BrokenSegue: If there's no Commons gallery and no topic's main category (P910) value, then the Commons category goes on the topic item (in this case, DGen (Q10263584)). I've added it back in this case. Commons category (P373) is useless. The sitelink powers the infobox on Commons, so you definitely shouldn't just delete the sitelink. I'm not sure if there's a policy this would be described in, but see User:Mike Peel/Commons linking for my help guide for the approach that seems to have consensus. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Policy on edits by block evading users

Is there a policy on Wikidata about how to deal with edits by socks of blocked users? On en.wikipedia the policy says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block..." but is it the same here? Sjö (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

No, there seems to be no consensus to apply this policy here on Wikidata. We currently only delete and revert in the most egregious cases (such as the more recent of the Conradi cases) --Emu (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

26 million articles to go...

I created a new tool for improving our scientific articles with main subjects 2 weeks ago. Since then, over a million articles have now got their first main subject!

We only got ~26 mil. left (out of a total of 73 mil. articles).

The tool uses some bandwidth, so recently I improved it, so it can run in the WMF Cloud Services Kubernetes platform also.

Feel free to help out :)--So9q (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Don't many papers submitted come with "tags" e.g. this paper is tagged as "randomized algorithms", "rejection method" and "Random number generation". I wonder if we could import those in a sensible way. BrokenSegue (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I did not find the "rejection method" there, but yes, that particular page lists tags. There are thousands of publishers so making a tool that reliable scrapes these tags is IMO not feasible (for big repos like PubMed it might be worth it).
I recently created a NER capable tool, but it needs more input data than WDQS can give today (cirrussearch limits to 10000).
The very best would be open science with high quality linked metadata including categorization (a little like PubMed has MeSH, although it does not have to be a controlled vocabulary), but anything machine readable is better than nothing. I asked in the telegram groups if anyone sits on a reliable source for the abstracts, that does not need scraping, but none has come forward. I'm thinking about downloading the libgen archive and do NER matching on cleaned PDF data, but that is unfortunately a terribly messy approach (and possibly illegal too). It could be fun though :)--So9q (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't find edits like these especially helpful. If you don't know the difference between CRISPR (Q412563) and CRISPR screen (Q106472333) then please avoid biomedical literature. I know the topic is complicated. Please have respect and note that proper terms may consist of multiple words that may not be adjacent. --SCIdude (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@SCIdude: Thanks a lot for your feedback. I was not aware of CRISPR screen (Q106472333). I added it here to keep track of it. If you find other similar cases, please feel free to add it there in a comment.--So9q (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@So9q: If I were you I would do such edits semiautomatically by eyeballing the list of titles about to receive a specific edit. You cannot expect others to always spot and report your mistakes. --SCIdude (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@SCIdude: Doing every single edit semi-automatically could also be done, however the edit rate by the few who work on this on our scholarly articles would be so low that it would take many years to add 1 main subject to every article. Right now we have 14M main subjects in total on the 37M articles. We are thus still very far from scientists to be able to easily query and find what they need, e.g. via Scholia. By looking closely at a random sample of 50 items of a batch of say 1000 items I have made thousands of good edits in just a few days. If I spot anything in the sample I deny the batch. Try the tool for yourself to see how it works. Inferring main subjects only by labels is really suboptimal, but it is the least terrible approach I have been able to come up with. Training an AI to read abstracts and spit out main subject suggestions (for approval, like WikidataComplete) might be a better approach, but the abstracts are unfortunately not available in bulk anywhere to my knowledge. You can easily revert a whole batch if it was tainted by false positives.--So9q (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
As a followup to the above I have now implemented 2 changes in ItemSubjector: 1) it now excludes aliases below 4 chars automatically to avoid false positives like EIN. 2) I have change hard cap of 50 items into showing 1 random sample for every 20 items matched. This makes it easier to spot bad matches for big batches of many thousand items. I hope this will result in fever bad matches overall.--So9q (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Request: Merge items with complementary information

Two items for the same scientist currently exist: Irene Maria Cardoso (Q90783507) and Irene Maria Cardoso (Q106949981). One has information from orcid, the other has a photograph and other information. Could someone merge them please? I'm afraid I might do something wrong if I attempt it myself. Thanks! Mateussf (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

What label to use for people with "mul" language code

After countless proposals, it seems we are finally getting labels in language "mul" (see phab:T285156 with a few open questions).

"mul" will be a fallback in addition to "en" for all languages.

From an editorial side, the question is what label to add there for classes of items where this is useful.

For people (items with P31=Q5), the value of name in native language (P1559) seems a good candidate.

Given that "mul" will include labels in Latin script and others, the value could be the Russian name. The idea to use "mul-latn" to provide a label for Latin script languages doesn't seem to be implemented.

Shall we opt for the name in native language (P1559) value? Should contributors be prevented to add the identical value to specific languages? --- Jura 05:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest rather than "native language" it should be the most commonly used form of the name, whatever the language or script - if that is known. That seems most useful for this purpose, and applies to more than just people. I don't think preventing adding the identical value is a good idea - what do you do when somebody edits the 'mul' label? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't the most commonly form end up being English? Something that the "mul" label should be an improvement over?
The idea about identical labels is from the phab ticket. It's probably one of those "backfire" question Lydia is pondering. --- Jura 17:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Given that mul will be mostly used for Latin script languages, whatever value it includes should probably be in Latin script.
For this, the current English label is probably a useful default and frequently identical to name in native language (P1559). Even when P1559 is in Latin script, but differs from en, en might be a useful default.
(a) Cases where they differ, notably names that are generally translated: Charles III of Spain(Q36234), Pope Francis(Q450675), Benedict of Nursia(Q44265), Charles FitzRoy, 2nd Duke of Cleveland(Q3315758), etc.
(b) Also, when some language prefer full names others only the generally used form. Sample: "Philip L. Brown" or "Philip Larry Brown" or "Philip Brown", fictional sample by @Epìdosis: at phab:T285156#7322423). Real ones, e.g. Q9696, Q6294. --- Jura 06:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I do not know what this is all about, but in case people will not let us use "native language-Turkish" for a Turkish Latin Alphabet given name like Çağdaş, Çağın, Gülşen, Anıl or Çiğdem or try to impose us that these names are "in fact" Cagdas, Cagin, Gulsen, Anil or Cigdem (sic) there may be some noise. (If my understanding is wrong, please just ignore me. No need for pointed replies.) --E4024 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Q66593009

Hi, does anyone know where discussion of ontological confusion cause by the existence of Q66593009 (previously "reason for end cause") was based?

If anything I think it clarified things, since now many instances will be transferred to instances of Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (Q27949697) (for example, account suspension (Q87406427)) which encourages incorrect use of deprecation when a statement is still valid and just has a temporal end.

It does not appear in the deletion log for July 28th (or 29th) or on the project ontology talk page.

Thanks --SilentSpike (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess it duplicates end cause (Q22087155). @ChristianKl:. --Lockal (talk) 07:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, forgot about Special:WhatLinksHere/Q66593009. @SilentSpike:, there it is. --Lockal (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lockal: Thank you, I also forgot about that special page. That clears some things up, although I would assume that Wikibase reason for deprecated rank (Q27949697) should then be deleted for the same reasoning @ChristianKl:. --SilentSpike (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Message "No wikidata ID found !"

Hello, very often, when I try to associate a Commons category to a Wikidata ID, the message "NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND!" still remains after I've updated the ID, and even if the page is refreshed. Example today. Please, what causes that, and, how to manage the change efficiently? Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Add the category to the Multilingual sites sitelink doodab - diff. Wikidata Infobox does not seem to use commonscat. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Noted! Thanks, Tagishsimon -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Commons category (P373) is one-directional: you can see it here, but not from Commons. The sitelinks are two-directional: you see it here, and you see the Wikidata item from Commons, so the infobox can work. Sorry for the confusion: this is one of the reasons why I want to see Commons category (P373) deleted... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Mike Peel. I understand this property is redundant -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I hate Commons Category as a property, I never understood why we have it, and it was the source of erroneous error messages for a full year! --RAN (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements

 

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #488

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Discussions
    • Closed request for adminship: BrokenSegue. Welcome onboard \o/
  • Development
    • Finished preventing a case where the same sitelink could be added to two different Items (phab:T291377)
    • Continuing work on the Mismatch Finder. Currently focusing on showing the details of the mismatches to the person reviewing mismatches.
    • Continued work on not allowing two Properties to have the same label after undo/revert (phab:T289473)
    • Continuing work on improving how changes on Wikidata are propagated to Wikipedia and the other other Wikimedia projects. The new system is being rolled out to all wikis now. It should not change anything for editors and just be a technical improvement in the backend.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Remove main namespace from wgExtraSignatureNamespaces

I am planning to remove the main namespace from the wgExtraSignatureNamespaces configuration setting on this wiki. I think this will have very little impact, but letting you know just in case. For more context, see task T291630 (although I'm happy to reply here if you have any questions).

Currently, that configuration setting affects:

It was configured that way in 2014 for all "special" wikis (basically, anything other than the Wikimedia projects with multiple language versions), on the assumption that they often have discussions, including their "village pump" equivalent, in [main namespace]. This doesn't seem correct for this wiki. We're planning to use that config setting for future discussion-related features, and it would probably be unexpected if they showed up in the main namespace here.

Please let me know if there's any problem with this. Thanks. Matma Rex (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add that on Wikidata (unlike other wikis where I posted this message), it will have exceptionally little impact, because the main namespace is obviously not editable as wikitext at all. :) Matma Rex (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Victim of a murder

At Ocey Snead murder (Q108801836) I have the victim of a murder, but get a message that I need to add in "object has role", what value is it expecting? --RAN (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The answer to that question is a bit obvious @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): --Trade (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

P9929

Can we make it imposible to add this to person items without reliable sources? Wikidata is supposed to be a databank, not a place to showcase what we believe we know (how come?) about the intimate beliefs of other people. These kind of unsourced additions lowers the quality of Wikidata, a place where "anybody" can edit. We are not academics, experts, people looked up to by others. We should know and respect our limits. Even "ethnicity" requires "reliable sources" when it is much easier to imagine than intimate religious feelings of people... --E4024 (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

These statements are not unsources. They are just imported from Wikipedia --Trade (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Not with our current set of constraints, no. Nor have you established that there is a need for such a constraint. Is there a problem amongst its 957 uses to date? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Each and every one of them that does not have a reliable source is problematic. So simple. --E4024 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And how many would that be? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
A few times I have bulk-removed thousands of unreferenced claims of one or two other sensitive properties. There had been discussions in advance which indicated consensus for this type of action, and I did not really run into trouble by doing this.
IMO we should establish procedures to do this periodically for all sensitive (to be defined) properties, ideally with a bot. Currently, nobody really cares about "citation needed" constraint violations, and there is no mechanism to prevent those claims from being added either. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see this is a sensitive matter so i'll cease using Wikipedia as a source regarding this property from now on. --Trade (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this okay? @E4024: --Trade (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not know. I am not your superviser. I hope you to use sound (reliable) sources as much as possible for this kind of edits. (WPs are not reliable sources.) We do not need to find sources -in most cases- to clear issues like someone's name or country of citizenship; but ethnicity, religion, sect etc are not that kind of elements. Thanks, especially for "I can see this is a sensitive matter so i'll cease using Wikipedia as a source regarding this property from now on." E4024 (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Islam as a given name

Islam appears as an Arabic language male given name, although in the "script" statement Latin is used. Islam Yazidi is also in there as a female. Therefore, people who know Arabic culture better, please decide if this is a male-only name or a unisex name. (I added "male given name born by a female" thingy to the item of Islam Yazidi (Q65370789), to be on the safe side.) Take the opportunity to see the "script" issue also. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Portuguese

Portuguese speakers, which of the following words are "Portuguese of Portugal" and which belong to "Portuguese of Brazil"? Actor-ator, Actriz-atriz. I am asking this not to make wrong descriptions... Obrigad@. --E4024 (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Property for "period covered" by a periodical or other work

Periodical volumes can be said to "cover" a period. E.g. Popular Science Monthly, Volume 1 (Q105323441) covers May 1872 to October 1872. The same goes for works or sections of works that cover periods, such as The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, Volume 1 (Q108803819), which covers 1493–1529.

What is/are the property/ies for that? start time (P580)/end time (P582) seems a little vague, but maybe it can be qualified? Inductiveload (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly start of covered period (P7103) and end of covered period (P7104)? Interesting this is not addressed at Wikidata:WikiProject Periodicals#Volume item properties. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Well I feel stupid, but not too stupid in that case. ^_^ Inductiveload (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Periodic reminder that https://hay.toolforge.org/propbrowse/ is invaluable in these situations. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I only learned about it last week to be used for the time period covered by an archive of papers. --RAN (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Inquiry help

I can't find examples of how an official accident inquiry is setup, if you have experience, please see inquiry into the Shenandoah disaster (Q108808018) and add in properties. --RAN (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Draft Enforcement Guidelines review still needs your ideas and opinions

Hello, this is just a reminder that the Universal Code of Conduct Draft Enforcement Guidelines are open for review and comment. The Drafting Committee will start working on revisions and improvement in less than two weeks (October 17), so it is important that you give them your ideas and opinions soon!

There is now a short, simple version of the Draft Guidelines here to make your review easier. If possible, also help translate the short version into more languages!

We will also hold one last conversation hour on October 15, 2021 03:00 and 14:00 UTC.

On behalf of the Drafting Committee, much thanks to everyone who has given ideas so far. We hope to hear from more of you - the Guidelines will be much stronger if more opinions are included.--*Youngjin (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Locked

Can someone add these pages to the wikidata database, I tried it myself but the pages are locked. Thanks.

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingBaudoin (talk • contribs) at 12:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC).

  Done Vahurzpu (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
@KingBaudoin: As you appear to be in good standing on other projects, I have granted you confirmed status. This should allow you to edit semi-protected items without waiting for autoconfirmation. Bovlb (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Bovlb! KingBaudoin (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

SPARQL for querying all objects for humans, with an article in (german language) wikipedia without date of birth in wikidata

Hello, I would like to get a list of objects for all humans, which have a article in the german wikipedia, but no date of birth in the wikidata object, in order to add the missing dates if possible.

I have several queries at

The problem is, that these queries might run into a timeout eventually. So, the "bigger" the queries are (in terms of the selected objects, e.g. all men) the more probable they run into a timeout and you have to repeat the same query again and again to get a result eventually (sometimes every tenth run or so actually returns a result, while nine out of ten runs end with a timeout). If you split the queries into smaller chunks (eg. by profession or country, eg. only footballers, only politicians, only germans, ....) there are less problems with timeouts, i.e. they are less probable/not so often, but the disadvantage is, that you have to run severall different (sub)queries.

So, is there a more efficient way to get a list of objects with an existing article in one language version (e.g. german wikipedia) with missing date of birth? Thanks a lot! --M2k~dewiki (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I did a similar query in Lockalbot, where I needed to iterate through all Wikidata items with a sitelink in a specific language (many millions of items), that have a specific P31 and no P646/P2671. The similar approach is used in Wikidata:Database reports/items with P569 greater than P570. You select a dimension (a single SPO triple), iterate with service bd:slice by changing bd:slice.limit and bd:slice.offset, while throwing away items that are not passing filter (with hint:Query hint:optimizer "None"). It can be done much easier with custom script, not with Listeria. --Lockal (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
PetScan found 3,535 such people in under 25 seconds: [3]. --Quesotiotyo (talk) 08:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you focus on one area at a time (for example all politicians, then all atheletes, then some other). Even if you can somehow get a complete list you won't have time to improve all of them before someone else fills in the same information in a random item for you. Do it one step at a time, start editing now. --Midleading (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Midleading:, thanks a lot, but the result set is processed by an external script to harvest the dates from the german wikipedia for (new) items not yet checked (items already check are stored in a local file, so they are not checked again and again) from template d:Q5153934, so the number of items in the result do not matter. Currently there are less than 50 items which have a (usable) date of birth in the german wikipedia in this template, but no date of birth in the related object.
Hello @Quesotiotyo:, thanks a lot, PetScan also sometimes runs into an error (PageList::run_batch_query: get_wiki_db_connection: "Server(ServerError { code: 1226, message: \"User \\\'....\\\' has exceeded the \\\'max_user_connections\\\' resource (current value: 40)\", state: \"42000\" })"; in addition it includes objects, which are in the category de:Kategorie:Person nach Geschlecht, but do not have statement P31:Q5 in the object, like d:Q21282413, d:Q1952594, various bands d:Q1353806, d:Q353025, d:Q1094052, ... These might needed to be exlcuded by using Negative categories. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)--M2k~dewiki (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
You can add Q5 to the "Uses items/props" ["Objekte/Beschreibungen"] parameter to generate a list of non-humans and then subtract that from the original result.
--Quesotiotyo (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

User:中文維基百科20021024 disrupted sweetener (Q4368298)(sweetener) and sugar substitute (Q626292)(sugar substitute).

This user removed many ques about sweetener in sweetener (Q4368298)(sweetener) and changed some labels to artificial sweetner or sugar substitute. Sharouser (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not same. sweetener (Q4368298) includes sucrose or fructose but sugar substitute (Q626292) excludes them. --Sharouser (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the statement GUID upper case or lower case?

I create statements with wbsetclaim-create with lower case GUIDs. Recently I find out that wbsetclaim would create a brand new statement instead of modifying the old statement, if the old statement uses upper case GUID and I use lower case GUID. So the GUID with upper case letters and lower case letters are not the same and they can coexist in the same item! Which one to use for a new statement to be created via wbsetclaim-create? --Midleading (talk) 15:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Midleading: Are you generating your own GUID's? I wouldn't do that! Use wbcreateclaim if you are creating a new claim, and if you're editing a claim fetch the GUID you want to change first, and preserve that string when you are updating it. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. However wbsetclaim can set the qualifiers and references for the new statement, which makes it better than wbcreateclaim. According to examples in wbsetclaim documentation, wbsetclaim can be used to create a claim and these GUID should be in lower case. According to wbeditentity documentation, wbeditentity can be used to create multiple statements at once and these GUIDs can even contain letters from G to Z. I'm using wbsetclaim to create 1 statement and wbeditentity to create 2 or more statements. I'll wait and see whether this API usage would become deprecated. --Midleading (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
As much as I am aware, you only need to provide a GUID/statement-id in those API calls if you want to modify or remove already existing claims—which are then being identified by this GUID. If you create a new claim, do not add any GUID in the API call. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I tried to create a statement with reference using wbsetclaim without setting GUID (action=wbsetclaim&format=xml&bot=1&claim=%7B%22type%22%3A%22statement%22%2C%22mainsnak%22%3A%7B%22snaktype%22%3A%22value%22%2C%22property%22%3A%22P50%22%2C%22datavalue%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22wikibase-entityid%22%2C%22value%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%22Q10931961%22%7D%7D%7D%2C%22references%22%3A%5B%7B%22snaks%22%3A%7B%22P143%22%3A%5B%7B%22snaktype%22%3A%22value%22%2C%22property%22%3A%22P143%22%2C%22datavalue%22%3A%7B%22type%22%3A%22wikibase-entityid%22%2C%22value%22%3A%7B%22id%22%3A%22Q19822573%22%7D%7D%7D%5D%7D%2C%22snaks-order%22%3A%5B%22P143%22%5D%7D%5D%2C%22rank%22%3A%22normal%22%7D&token=...&maxlag=5). Not successful. The server response is pasted below. It seems I must create a GUID to submit a wbsetclaim request. --Midleading (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
<?xml version="1.0"?><api servedby="mw1386"><error code="invalid-claim" info="GUID must be set when setting a claim"><messages><message name="wikibase-api-invalid-claim"><parameters><parameter>GUID must be set when setting a claim</parameter></parameters><html xml:space="preserve">GUID must be set when setting a claim</html></message></messages><docref xml:space="preserve">See https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at &amp;lt;https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/mediawiki-api-announce.lists.wikimedia.org/&amp;gt; for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.</docref></error></api>

I just realized there isn't the item ID in the request, and wbsetclaim don't even accept one unless it is inside the statement GUID. wbeditentity has the id parameter. I guess I have to use that for all edits. --Midleading (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

wbeditentity works, but the edit summaries become meaningless, unlike wbsetclaim. --Midleading (talk) 12:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Midleading: You can set the edit summary with the 'summary' parameter for wbeditentity (I think all the other edit actions allow this also). Sorry that wbcreateclaim doesn't do what you want; maybe we should push for another API action (or modification of that one) so it is possible, it certainly seems reasonable to be able to add a full claim with qualifiers and references all at once! ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I will stay on wbsetclaim with a GUID created myself until it is deprecated, for an auto edit summary with label and link to the statement value to make sure there are no unexpected edits and be able to spot problems with the statement value. Letting MediaWiki create the GUID probably has a benefit that it can make sure the GUID is really unique like what financial databases do, but I don't care about it. --Midleading (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, does the software actually use the GUIDs you create by yourself, or does it "overwrite" it with something else? —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
You can set initial values for GUIDs, it will look like Q4115189#Q4115189$00000000-dead-beef-0000-000000000000. If you try to set the same guid for multiple statements of the same type, one of the statements will be removed. So I don't see this as an issue or vulnerability, there are some checks to protect against creation of non-removable duplicates, etc. As for lowercase/uppercase, there is no exact answer, AFAIR, uppercase GUIDs were created by early version of Wikibase. Btw, if you are interested, I checked with User:Lockal/rawedit.js. --Lockal (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lockal: Thank you for your answer. --Midleading (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please merge these

Please merge https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7702664 into https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11316592 Cam1170 (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. See Help:merge --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Link Translations of Dāvāja Māriņa - an original Latvian song

Hi there!

Dāvāja Māriņa is an original Latvian song https://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%81v%C4%81ja_M%C4%81ri%C5%86a

In en wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_Roses , it has Language links for az, fa, ko, ja, nl, tr

In ru wiki https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD_%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7 , it has Language links for cs, he and vi

Could you please link them all ? (I tried myself with Merge Gadget but failed) Leemyongpak (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. Million alykh roz (Q92084478) seems to be a translated version of Dāvāja Māriņa (Q1154423). And the former also has the property based on (P144) which links to the original. --Christian140 (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I see that information in wikidata.
The problem is in wikipedia:
When visitor view Million alykh roz (Q92084478), they don't see Language links for en, ja, ko
and
When visitor view Dāvāja Māriņa (Q1154423), they don't see Language links for ru, cs, vi
Is there any way to help visitor Easily know these translated song are Really linked together ?
(I tried to add a new Language link but the system warned about conflict and suggest a Merge) Leemyongpak (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
But why should they see the other links if it is not the same? On wikidata, you can see that they are linked by the property based on (P144). On wikipedia, you could add the links directly. E.g. edit ru:Миллион роз and add [[en:Million Roses]] [[lv:Dāvāja Māriņa]] etc. at the bottom. --Christian140 (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
That way is not Easy, a Language switcher Is.
They are all come from Latvian song Dāvāja Māriņa.
Just wonder why they have been divided to 2 groups. Leemyongpak (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
It is a known design issue - Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items, solved by temporary vandalizing a redirect page + [4]. --Lockal (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

property for watch movements

We have item for a couple of mechanical watch movements such as ETA 7750 (Q3059197) and Miyota 8215 (Q6884520) but we miss the key properties for them. Are there any watch enthusiasts around to help in proposing a few important properties? From top of my head I can think of these as nice to have properties:

  • Winding type: manual/automatic
  • Vibration frequency
  • Number of jewels
  • Power reserve (running time)

-- Meisam (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

How to model Agent - Action (- Result) relationship?

cell division (Q188909) is a process performed by cell (Q7868). More specifically, mother cell performs cell division (Q188909) and produces (or the process results in) two or more daughter cell (Q2438287). I guess product or material produced or service provided (P1056) or perhaps has immediate cause (P1478) can be used to describe Action - Result (cell division (Q188909) - daughter cell (Q2438287)) relationship, but how can we model Agent - Action relationship? --Mzaki (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Qualifiers of image (P18)

Hi everybody.

I've been working on picture qualifiers. Usually, we have depicts (P180) and media legend (P2096). Buit in the case of taxons, we often have sex or gender (P21) and location (P276) (examples: Q303077#P18 and Q310387#P18).

How do you think we could indicate that the picture is a fossil, or a jaw or a scientific illustration and still, use depicts (P180) to identify the species (e.g. in a genus item)? Using another depicts (P180)?

How would you indicate the species in a butterfly genus and also indicate that it's a caterpillar (Q81825)? With two depicts (P180)?

Thanks in advance, Paucabot (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've used biological phase (P4774) in Q304358#P18, but it seems this is not the proper use of this property. Any suggestions? Paucabot (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, use multiple depicts (P180) qualifiers. Sometimes simple solutions are best. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
And to indicate the author of a scientific illustration, would you use creator (P170) like in Q21801#P18? Paucabot (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

City Also Known As Lists

Ok, so some of these are obviously silly rubbish ("Modern Babylon" as a specific alt name for Q84 London) and should be removed (done), some obviously need to be added ("City of Love" for Q90 Paris), and others are obviously judgment calls ("Serenissima" more properly referred to the doge & republic than to Q641 Venice although in Italian "La Serenissima" works for the city and some English speakers use that affectedly).

Are there any good policies yet for the following questions?

1st, is it fine to purge foreign lists from the English alt names? English will certainly sometimes use Italian "Firenze" or Tuscan "Fiorenza" for modern Q2044 Florence and Latin "Florentia" for its distant past but under no circumstances will it use umlauted nonlocal Emiliano "Fiuränza" or German "Florenz" as anything other than discussion of the name in those languages. But are there any specific guidelines the project has worked out for what makes sense and what doesn't?

2nd, what's going on with all the new silly "London, England"; "Paris, France"; and "Venice, Italy" alt names? Is this just an overactive editor's well meaning mistake or a deliberate policy? The information should already be obvious from the other fields and including it (besides being a redundant eyesore) means you're begging for typos like "Rome Italy" Q220 and messes like "London, United Kingdom"; "London, UK"; "Moskva, Russia"; "Moscow, Russian Federation"; "Moscow, Russian SFSR"; "Moscow, Soviet Union" (Q649); &c. Are we really going to end up with "Rome, [Every Country that's Ever Held It]"; "Jerusalem, [Every Country that's Ever Held It]"; "[Chinese City], [Every Dynasty in Chinese History]"? I get that English language learners might benefit from knowing that Americans idiosyncratically prefer to identify their own cities by state, Canadian cities by province, British cities by constituent country, and nearly every other city on Earth by country but surely that belongs in a StackExchange discussion and not spelled out and then mistakenly extended through every single city entry on Wikidata. ― LlywelynII (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

To the extent I understand your post - presumably you're talking about alias lists - what's going on with all the new silly "London, England" alt names, is that London may well be known, in a diversity of systems, as "London, England", and said system or someone utilising said system's data, will more easily do a string match on "London, England" than on "London". And that is what aliases are all about: findability, both for humans and for information systems. In general, the more the better, and one embarks on a pruning exercise such as the one you're contemplating, above, only in error. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
To illustrate how difficult it is to decide what "Also Known As" values are relevant or not: the smilingly obvious wrong alias of "Modern Babylon" is confirmed real by the IMDB documentary called "London: The Modern Babylon". Daanvr (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Idea: Improve the sitelink system

Problem: Wiki articles may cover more, less, or different things than the Wikidata item that they are linked on.

Example:

ja:清水トンネル

describes

Shimizu Tunnel (Q22329636): railway tunnel in Japan

and

Daishimizu Tunnel (Q2623189): railway tunnel in Japan

Current solution: Make a Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) item (Shimizu Tunnels (Q75220055)!

The problem with the current solution: If there are other languages that cover less, more, or different concepts, they will be sitelinked on different items and Wiki users will not be able to find them!

Example of problem with the current solution: en:Shimizu Tunnel shows no sitelinks to ja:清水トンネル since they are on different items!

Better solution:

  • Move all individual (enwiki, frwiki, etc.) Wiki articles over to their own item (like Wikipedia article page (Q50081413). This also means no more Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471)).
  • Add main subject (P921) to each article item to specify what it talks about. This is necessary so that we know which articles cover which topics (even if many of them will be the same).
  • Prevent sitelinks from being added to non-article items in the future and fix the Wikidata item creation tool.
  • Fix the Languages sitelink system on Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, etc. so that it shows users articles in other languages that cover different topics, using Wikidata as a backbone.

How to fix the Languages system:

Wikipedia will run a query on Wikidata for other Wikipedia article items that have the same main subject (P921)s and parse them into a readable view that seperates the articles by topic covered.

For example with the New Vector skin including the previously-absent English sitelink:

 

So clearly this would take some significant work, but I think it's a necessary and good solution.

What are your thoughts as the Wikidata community before I might propose this at the Wikimedia level? Lectrician1 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: do you propose that there is one item for “Wikipedia article about Shimuzu Tunnel” (with potentially several sitelinks), or one item for “English Wikipedia article about Shimuzu Tunnel”, one for “Japanese Wikipedia article about Shimuzu Tunnel”, etc.? Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister One for each language Wikipedia. Lectrician1 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The proposal does not seem to improve anything at all. At a very great cost (additional items, additional nodes in the graph) we're being invited to rely on 'main subject' searches rather than, for instance, 'part of'/'has part' searches, for no obvious benefit. Interwiki links are not improved. The whole complexity of the way in which things can be arranged and divided, so as to achieve the distinct (fundamental, atomic) non-article items of which the article-items have 'main subject' is wished away and ignored. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon I'm a bit confused by your criticism.
How would you solve this problem using part of/has part (be specific)?
How does this system have no benefit? The main benefit is that users can now find sitelinks! Lectrician1 (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Users already can find sitelinks. Most articles are single subject and this isn't a problem. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
A much simpler solution, that also removes the need for Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471), would be to allow several sitelinks for a language version and also allow several items to have the same sitelink. I say simpler, because it's conceptually simpler, not necessarily technically simpler (I have no idea of that). Ainali (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ainali Some problems with that approach:
  • Sitelinks with different names than the topic items they are on can confuse editors and require occasional review to see if they actually contain the topic. Also, if a page is split or merged, than someone has to remember to go back and change the topics on their items. This creates quite a mess managing multiple sitelinks on multiple items.
  • What does the "Wikidata item" link on a Wikipedia article go to when clicked if there are sitelinks for the article on multiple items?
I think my solution is very conceptually simple. Every article has an item. If you're a Wikipedia editor, just add the topics covered in the article to the item and you're done! Wikipedia and Wikidata handle the rest. Lectrician1 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • You have the exact same problem in your proposal, right? If you have an article named "X and Y", you will probably have two main subject "X" and "Y". So it will be the exact same result for the user. Regarding merging, the merging tools should take care of that. And if you are splitting, that is usually caused by the sitelinks, so it will be natural to fix.
  • You'll need several links, and I suggest being explicit with labels rather than just writing "Wikidata item".
Well if you have an article like "History of X", if you are a Wikipedia editor, you might be tempted to add many topics. And if it were a scientific article or a book, that might be correct. And I am not sure editing regular statements are conceptually simpler than adding sitelinks since they have many more possible buttons to click. Ainali (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ainali
"History of X" articles are not going to create a lot of links because we already have conceptual historical items that they are linked to (for example, history of India (Q133136)). With history articles, we don't need to differentiate between what is mainly described by individual sites since they all describe "the history of X". These "History of X" articles are present across Wikipedias.
However, my proposed system actually has some benefits in regards to describing and differentiating history articles.
My system can be used to create has part(s) (P527) statements that can describe what an article talks about on a article-level (kind of like what Mapping Orphan Wikidata Entities onto Wikipedia Sections did!). You wouldn't be able to do that without dedicated article items! Relating to this, dedicated article items could be used to describe other specific things about articles in the future! Lectrician1 (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
The Japanese Wikipedia is a wiki with a high tolerance for combining several different concepts into the same article. This suggestion is interesting.--Afaz (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Creating Wikidata powered maps of all the protected monuments for a country on Wikipedia (using Kartographer)

Hi all

I'd like to try and make maps for Wikipedia which show the protected buildings in each country using data from Wikidata. I think this would be really helpful for users and show the power of Wikidata in creating visualisations, also the maps for other countries should be fairly easy to create once the first one has been finished, just changing a few parameters. A couple of years ago I helped write some documentation for this at Wikidata:Map data, but don't remember much of the process. I'd like to start with Norway because I know there is a lot of data, each protected monument is listed using Kulturminne ID (P758), I would really appreciate some help thinking about creating the maps, some inital questions:

  • Is there likely to be an upper limit of the number of points I can add to a map? Will it time out like big Query service quesries?
  • Does anyone know how to make the map using Kartographer
  • If we want to make a reusable template map that can be repurposed for lots of countries, how could we make it easy to do things like centre the map correctly.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add to Wikipedia a map with a point for each item based on a SPARLQ query, then... it's not possible. See phab:T188291. Ayack (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Recoin doesn't work

A very useful Wikidata:Recoin tool doesn't work anymore. Can someone help, please? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I reported the bug on Phabricator, let's hope someone can help. It is really a useful tool :-( --Soylacarli (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Soylacarli: The issue is resolved. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes! I just saw the notification about it on Phabricator. I'm relieved, I use Recoin all day jaja. --Soylacarli (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruption

It seems that a user is disrupting with this kind of edit. The reason is because the user wants to delete the article from WP French. The bactery gives 126'000 results on Google, and is mentioned in the journal Nature. It would be nice if someone here keeps an eye, since I might be busy. Best regards and thanks in advance -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Totodu74: why are you deleting the sitelinks for this item? It looks like vandalism. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi BrokenSegue. I was not aware that Wikidata was now allowing to have redirects as interwiki links, hence my first edit. Take a closer look to my following reverts: they were mostly done to re-establish taxonomic statements (taxon authors, taxon synonyms, and their references) that were also wiped away by the plaintiff contributor; and I did not care much to erase useless interwikis by doing so. For some explanations in English on the back story, see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Redirecting Raoultella towards Klebsiella. Cheers, Totodu74 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #489

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: We are continuing the work on the review part of the system. We are now working on letting reviewers indicate if the mismatch is on Wikidata, the other database, both or neither.
    • Fixed a bug where it was possible for two Properties to have the same label in a given language by undoing/reverting an edit (phab:T289473)
    • Fixed a confusing error message that was being shown when trying to save geoshape / tabular data that doesn’t exist (phab:T285758)
    • Removing some unnecessary entity link formatting in edit summaries and special pages to improve performance (phab:T292203)
    • Fixing an issue with invalid dates that the API accepts but should not (phab:T289417)
    • Migrated all Wikimedia wikis to use the new change dispatching system. This system is responsible for notifying the other wikis about edits made on Wikidata that affect their articles so the article is refreshed and edits are added to recent changes and watchlists.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Importing 18421 french accommodations into Wikidata

I found a dataset of 18421 records in the public domain. A week ago I came acros this LIVE Wikidata editing #55 OpenRefine episode explaining how to clean and reconcile a dataset using OpenRefine. Sinds then I put a lot of effort into cleaning and reconciling all the 18421 accommodations, including creating a wel refferenced schema.

I feel ready to click on the "import to Wikidata" button however I beleave it is common practice to have it approved. Sounds like a good idea too. How do I go about that? where do I get aproval. I found pages about bots and such but I ma not a bot :) --Daanvr (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think opinions vary on what is & what is not bot use. Write a bot, or borrow someone else's code, and you're a bot needing approval. Use QuickStatements, Wikibase-CLI or OpenRefine, and you're not so much. I presume your proposed append mechanism is OpenRefine.
The data set has good provenance, but we know nothing about how you're reconciling the data with WD's commune, department and region item coding. Nor, especially in this area, do we know how you are reconciling rows with, for instance, the presumably many thousands of French buildings which already have WD items as a result of cultural heritage listings, and which may feature in your list. It's not clear how you will ascertain that your new append is a not duplicate of an item WD already has, where simple string matching is frustrated by the diversity of ways in which objects are labelled.
My inclination, since you have raised it here, is to invite a response to the coding and reconciliation questions; and perhaps to create 5 items new items and a couple of existing item updates (for matched rows) such that feedback can be provided. Others may have other thoughts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Daanvr: Thank you for your work. I can't wait to see this imported! Thierry Caro (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro Thank you for your enthusiasm! :) Daanvr (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon, Where do I find "coding and reconciliation questions"? Nor Google nor looking through Wikidata helped me :/ Daanvr (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@Daanvr: Coding: I was simply referring to the need to tie up the commune, department & region strings in your dataset, with their QIds on WD, such that you can add appropriate located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and/or location (P276) statements. Reconciliation, or deduplication: not sure there's any guidance around, but the problem is plain: there may well be entries in the dataset which already have items on WD. The trick is how to spot this; will probably involve comparing the dataset with lists extracted from WD using the Query Service, so, for instance, hotels in France, campsites in France, &c. It's ideal if data is deduplicated before addition, though it's almost inevitable that some duplicates will be created, to be found & merged later. A final point I'd make is that if the data has a robust key - and I'm not sure if the column 1 sequential number is a good key, or merely an artefact of the presentation of the data - then the key might be captured, either in a new External ID property, or else the catalog (P972) property with a inventory number (P217) qualifier. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

need Split and Merge

We have Q56292759 Jacobus Jansenius [canonical name "Janssonius" at LC] and Q56006595 Jacobus Jansonius .

"Need" Split and Merge, I say because I suppose there is a some partly-automated way to repair without manually transferring data and references (including old timestamps?), nor losing more than necessary History of robots at work.

1. Q56292759 " Jacobus Jansenius " [canonical name "Janssonius" at LC] gives not so much linked data and references for JJ as the other, but may be wholly for unique person JJ.

2. Q56006595 " Jacobus Jansonius " provides more JJ data and references than the other, but mixed with George Wood (1799-1870 http://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n85381690). At a glance, Identifier statements alone mix data for unique JJ and unique Wood.

Where this latter item contains two statements for the same identifier, both ID may be for George Wood (two pages for one person at Open Library; three URL versions now for one page at WorldCat) or there may be one valid target for each man (VIAF; CERL).

VIAF may have the two people correctly sorted, as best possible. Its page VIAF ID: 72856671 (Wood) links neither of our two pages. Its page VIAF ID: 47106861 (JJ; we give 1812154983531067860003 which redirects) links both of our two pages.

--P64 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've merged the two items (to Jacobus Jansenius (Q56006595)), and discarded all IDs pointing to George Wood (1799-1870) who is now temporarily absent from WD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
George Wood (Q108871756) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The Community election of Movement Charter Drafting committee is now open!

Voting for the election for the members for the Movement Charter drafting committee is now open. In total, 70 Wikimedians from around the world are running for 7 seats in these elections.

Voting is open from October 12 to October 24, 2021.

The committee will consist of 15 members in total: The online communities vote for 7 members, 6 members will be selected by the Wikimedia affiliates through a parallel process, and 2 members will be appointed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The plan is to assemble the committee by November 1, 2021.

Learn about each candidate to inform your vote in the language that you prefer: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates>

Learn about the Drafting Committee: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee>

We are piloting a voting advice application for this election. Click yourself through the tool and you will see which candidate is closest to you! Check at <https://mcdc-election-compass.toolforge.org/>

Read the full announcement: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections>

Go vote at SecurePoll on: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections>

Best, --YKo (WMF) (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a good reason such edits are technically even possible?

[5]. This whether the page is protected or not. --- Jura 20:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1: No she is not. If I see correctly in the side protection log, the last protection ended on February 21, 2020. --Gymnicus (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Would it be possible to prevent edits like this with abuse filters? --Marsupium (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Marsupium It'd be up to the community to decide if they want the abuse filter to handle such changes. -Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mohammed Sadat (WMDE): what's the dev view on this ? --- Jura 10:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Why would you prevent such edits? Changing the precision may be correct in some cases. How would you correct a wrong precision if such edits were somehow prevented? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The change at Q80871#P569 is the following:

FromTo
date of birth (P569): 7 April 1889
referenced by:
  1. imported from Wikimedia project: English Wikipedia
  2. stated in, Integrated Authority File, retrieved, 9 April 2014
  3. stated in, BnF authorities, retrieved, 10 October 2015, reference URL, http://data.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb12020618k
  4. stated in, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID, biography/Gabriela-Mistral, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  5. stated in, SNAC, SNAC ARK ID, w67s7m92, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  6. stated in, Find a Grave, Find A Grave memorial ID, 7611795, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  7. stated in, Discogs, Discogs artist ID, 1001389, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  8. stated in, Estonian biographical database, Estonian biographical database ID, 6794, named as, Lucila Godoy Alcayaga, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  9. stated in, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie online ID, mistral-gabriela, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  10. stated in, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana ID, 0042919, named as, Gabriela Mistral
  11. stated in, GeneaStar, GeneaStar person ID, lucilademariadelperg, named as, Gabriela Mistral
  12. stated in, Babelio, Babelio author ID, 149635, named as, Gabriela Mistral
  13. stated in, Munzinger Personen, named as, Gabriela Mistral, Munzinger person ID, 00000000356, retrieved, 9 October 2017
date of birth (P569): July 1889
referenced by:
  1. imported from Wikimedia project: English Wikipedia
  2. stated in, Integrated Authority File, retrieved, 9 April 2014
  3. stated in, BnF authorities, retrieved, 10 October 2015, reference URL, http://data.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb12020618k
  4. stated in, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID, biography/Gabriela-Mistral, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  5. stated in, SNAC, SNAC ARK ID, w67s7m92, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  6. stated in, Find a Grave, Find A Grave memorial ID, 7611795, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  7. stated in, Discogs, Discogs artist ID, 1001389, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  8. stated in, Estonian biographical database, Estonian biographical database ID, 6794, named as, Lucila Godoy Alcayaga, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  9. stated in, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie online ID, mistral-gabriela, named as, Gabriela Mistral, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  10. stated in, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana ID, 0042919, named as, Gabriela Mistral
  11. stated in, GeneaStar, GeneaStar person ID, lucilademariadelperg, named as, Gabriela Mistral
  12. stated in, Babelio, Babelio author ID, 149635, named as, Gabriela Mistral
  13. stated in, Munzinger Personen, named as, Gabriela Mistral, Munzinger person ID, 00000000356, retrieved, 9 October 2017

This has nothing to do with changing the precision of a statement. Would it ever be correct? I doubt. Maybe you have a sample. --- Jura 12:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jura1 As I too understood what you wrote, this was about being able to edit a protected page ("the item wasn't actually protected"), or changing the precision dates of statements ("from the software side of things we wouldn't want to prevent people from making edits to items"): but from your last response what you're describing seem to be something else. Can you please explain what the problem is? Thanks. -Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The edit makes no sense (compare the two versions, including the references). Even when the page isn't protected, it shouldn't be possible.
Maybe "replacing a claim with 12 references with a different claim with the same 12 references" better describes what is being done.
One needs to bear in mind that claims should actually be based on the references attached to them.
I don't think the are cases where this type of edit can make sense.
On a side note (not that it matters to the problem discussed above): If one reference includes a date of a different precision, the sensible thing to do would be to create a new statement with that precision and move the one reference that didn't support the other precision there.
@Mohammed Sadat (WMDE): --- Jura 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jura1: There is a phabricator regarding this issue: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T231728 {{Phabricator|T213630}}. Ayack (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
The notice already exists and seems sensible if there is just one reference. --- Jura 12:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ayack: It seems you referenced two different tickets (phab:T231728 in your comment and phab:T213630 with the template outside your comment) . As the above problem isn't "tracked" in phab:T213630 either. I changed it to {{Tl}}.
FromTo
date of birth (P569): 8 January 1823
referenced by:
  1. stated in, Integrated Authority File, retrieved, 26 April 2014
  2. stated in, BnF authorities, Bibliothèque nationale de France ID, 12419995h, retrieved, 26 June 2020
  3. stated in, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID, biography/Alfred-Russel-Wallace, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  4. stated in, SNAC, SNAC ARK ID, w6bc41d1, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  5. stated in, Find a Grave, Find A Grave memorial ID, 6416, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  6. stated in, Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project, InPhO ID, thinker/4085, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  7. stated in, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie online ID, wallace-alfred-russel, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  8. stated in, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana ID, 0071768, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace
  9. stated in, Croatian Encyclopedia, Hrvatska enciklopedija ID, 65781, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace
  10. stated in, The Fine Art Archive, abART person ID, 149559, reference URL, https://cs.isabart.org/person/149559, retrieved, 1 April 2021
date of birth (P569): 8 January 1822
referenced by:
  1. stated in, Integrated Authority File, retrieved, 26 April 2014
  2. stated in, BnF authorities, Bibliothèque nationale de France ID, 12419995h, retrieved, 26 June 2020
  3. stated in, Encyclopædia Britannica Online, Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID, biography/Alfred-Russel-Wallace, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  4. stated in, SNAC, SNAC ARK ID, w6bc41d1, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  5. stated in, Find a Grave, Find A Grave memorial ID, 6416, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  6. stated in, Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project, InPhO ID, thinker/4085, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  7. stated in, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, Brockhaus Enzyklopädie online ID, wallace-alfred-russel, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace, retrieved, 9 October 2017
  8. stated in, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana, Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana ID, 0071768, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace
  9. stated in, Croatian Encyclopedia, Hrvatska enciklopedija ID, 65781, named as, Alfred Russel Wallace
  10. stated in, The Fine Art Archive, abART person ID, 149559, reference URL, https://cs.isabart.org/person/149559, retrieved, 1 April 2021

Another sample from [6]. --- Jura 07:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mohammed Sadat (WMDE): do you need more information? --- Jura 04:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems it got archived too quickly. --- Jura 10:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for providing those samples, and sorry for late response, I missed the ping about it. I agree with what you wrote, such changes are indeed problematic. But as I said earlier, we generally wouldn't want to prevent people from making edits to Items. This ticket Ayack pointed partly handles the problem by showing editors the warning icon, so they may reconsider their action. From the dev side of things, we currently have no way of knowing what is in the reference, and neither does the abuse filter. Either ways, if we are to disallow such changes, it’d have to be a decision that the community makes, then we can take it from there. Would you like to open an RFC to get consensus on that? -Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Need help with merge

Hi. I'm trying to merge Quonset State Airport into Quonset State Airport. I'm unable to do it with Special:MergeItems, receiving this error message:

Failed to merge Items, please resolve any conflicts first.

Error: Conflicting descriptions for language de.

I don't see a description in German for either of these items though. Thanks for your help. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cryptic-waveform: I was able to merge them using the gadget without difficulty. Bovlb (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Magic. Thanks :) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata Class Project

Hello, all. I am teaching a class on documentation and we are creating Wikidata items as part of the class. Students are working on items over the next 8 weeks are doing their best to create quality, notable items. I am overseeing the projects, but cannot monitor the items 24 hours a day. I am having issues with some items being deleted very quickly for not being notable. Is there any way to ensure to items are not being deleted before we have a chance to act and fill them out more fully, add references, etc. etc.? And students are creating items for local sites and figures that may look not notable at first glance if you are not aware of the overarching data goals. This is very frustrating situation for new Wikidata learners. Suggestions please. --Smallison (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Adding (ideally good quality) references from the start of the process is the most likely ameliorative measure; get your reference ducks in a row before appending the item. Ensure the item has a bare minimum of expected statements, and has well-formed label and description. Absent any of these, the item will be indistinguishable from the chaff, which is deleted in vast quantities - afaik 3000–5000 item per week are pulped. Evading being deleted is part of the learning process. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Adding on to what was already said another good technique for avoiding deletion is to integrate the items into the graph database. If an item is linked to by several other items it is less likely to be deleted en masse. BrokenSegue (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Smallison: A great project for beginners is to take a political position and fill out a whole series of them. I have been taking mayors of towns I have an interest in, and doing the research to find all the historical mayors. You start by creating an entry "mayor of X" and then one by one creating entries for each mayor. I do research by writing the mayor's office and local library to see if they already have a list, I search at newspapers.com (free with your Wikimedia account). You can concatenate them with start and end dates and then create a chart showing the mayors in chronological order. See: Mayor of Somerville, New Jersey (Q106445178) and Talk:Q106445178 for the chart, you also learn how to create a hierarchy of entries Mayors of the United States > Mayors of New Jersey > Mayors of Somerset County, New Jersey. I also contact the mayor's office and the local library asking if the have public domain images of the mayors. The task is almost unlimited, there are a dozen elected/appointed positions in each town, down to dogcatcher and postmaster. --RAN (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. @BrokenSegue@Tagishsimon Trying to make sure we have both good / high quality references, a full set of statements, and ensure items are linked. Someone did have an item deleted that was linked to another item, but it's unclear to me as of yet whether it was actually linked, or intended they intended to link and hadn't got to it yet. Smallison (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Split implausibility (Q16886573) ?

Shouldn’t these be split? The sitelink is not even about the implausibility concept, it’s just a redirect. I only doubt because it exists that way for a while, although isn’t used much anyway. — 188.123.231.2 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WikidataCon 2021 and sister projects

Hi all. I'm posting here as a co-curator of the 'Sister projects' track for WikidataCon 2021, which will take place online on 29-31 October 2021. The conference website is at [7].

Wikidata has been received very differently across the various Wikimedia projects - while some have welcomed it, others are very against it, and more are still talking about it. We would really like to see case studies both about how this has gone well, and where issues have been encountered. Please consider submitting a session proposal to explore the issues that you are most interested in.

You can find information about how to submit a session proposal at [8], and you can access the submission form at [9]. Please submit a session proposal through the Pretalx process so that we can review and schedule it appropriately - and make sure to mark it as a 'Sister projects' track proposal. Please note that we cannot accept a session outside of the Pretalx process. We also encourage you to submit talks to other tracks if you are interested!

Note that the deadline for submitting proposals is the 20th October - sorry for the short notice! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Older IP address

I was using an older IP address is 72.183.34.65 Time Warner Cable. When I search google and click information Wikipedia and I didn't know how should I test the sandbox. In February 2020, after 13 years, it was internet outages and it was replaced new IP Address Spectrum. No one exciting edit Wikipedia 72.176.0.0/13. Now it is replaced New IP address 47.234.128.0/17. Everyone is excited to research edit Wikipedia.

Thanks 47.234.198.142 01:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@47.234.198.142:
Your username and this post seem designed to confuse. :) Justin0x2004 (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Elo ratings update

I am ready to do it regularly:

  • Update the chess players' ratings on a monthly basis according to the FIDE monthly reports
  • Sort rating entries by date
  • Add the maximum rating value, if such a property exists. I do not know. This property is needed in the chess player's card on Wikipedia. If there is no such property, maybe create it?
  • Delete duplicate a chess player's rating if he has not played this month and his rating has not changed. Example: one participant flooded Wikidata with useless data, for example, Garry Kasparov has 201 rating entries, but the last 140 entries are the same. Why duplicate a rating if it hasn't changed since last month?
  • Add a chess player, if he is in the FIDE's sheet, regardless of his achievements. Or need clear criteria for adding. Although I do not see the need for this. The criteria are necessary for wikipedia in my opinion. But wikidata is for everyone, we don't know who might need this data.
  • Replacing the links to the member's page on the FIDE's site with a more reliable link to the monthly rating file on the FIDE's site. Member's page is deleted after death, but monthly files remain.

Please express your opinion. Игорь Темиров (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Игорь Темиров Where do you envision these monthly Elo rating to go in a ten or twenty years' time? The items of chess players will have hundreds of statements for Elo ratings. Wouldn't it be better to just move all Elo ratings to Tabular data on Commons now? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál. I have been posting the ratings of the best chess players on the commons.wikimedia.org for a year now. Used in the module:RatingFIDE for set the rating Elo to the chess player's card.
But there is a limit to the page size, accommodates about 30 thousand chess players out of 300 thousand. This is good for the current chess rating, but bad for the history of the rating change.
Apparently, Wikidata is the best option for this, but with the condition of deleting duplicate useless entries during the period when the chess player has no games. Игорь Темиров (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Re: size limit - that's unfortunate. I wish there was a way to store these numerical, periodically changing data that doesn't involve Wikidata :( Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I am now not active in the chess field, so this should only be a hint that those actually involved can exchange ideas. Regarding the duplicated posts, you could, if you want, use the two properties start time and end time. I have already done this with chart placements, which, like the chess player ranking, change from time to time. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we still do ELO ratings for zombies? At some point people kept getting ELO ratings even for dates after their known date of death.
It seemed to be me that @Steak: put some order in it and updates them on a quarterly basis. Isn't this sufficient?
There is some discussion also at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Elo_ratings_update. --- Jura 05:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
"Duplicate ratings" is a misconception by the thread opener. A rating is not simply duplicate, when it does not change from one rating period to the next. FIDE provides Elo ratings in regular intervals (currently once per month, in former times it was e.g. twice a year), and our task is to provide this data. There is no gain in simply omitting ratings that do not change. A complete list of best ratings of current month would not be possible if players without rating change are simply left out. And yes, we also provide Elo ratings of people that are dead, when FIDE also provides this data, but these ratings are marked as deprecated. Steak (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think Wikidata's task is to provide nonsensical ratings. If people are interested in zombies, these should go directly to FIDE. --- Jura 06:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Jura here. If rating value does not change over a time period, it is unnecessary to state it several times. Instead, a longer time window of start time (P580) and end time (P582) can be used to aggregate this information, without any information loss. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
"Duplicate ratings is a misconception by the thread opener" - FIDE provides the full rating because it is its responsibility. But we don't need unchanging ratings. Игорь Темиров (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Removing duplicate rating makes it hard or impossible to query lists for specific months. Can you show me how you would get the Elo Top 100 for, e.g. January 2009, if not every player has a rating statement for that month? Currently the query looks like this:
SELECT ?item ?elo ?fide_url WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5; p:P1087 [ ps:P1087 ?elo; pqv:P585/wikibase:timeValue ?time ] .
  FILTER (YEAR(?time) = 2009 && MONTH(?time) = 1) .
} ORDER BY DESC(?elo) LIMIT 100
Try it!
How would you modify it?
Next issue is with the de:Template:Elo-Diagramm: If a rating is removed, the connection line between the ratings is not anymore straight, but skewed, because the intermedia rating is missing. See e.g. de:Sergei_Alexandrowitsch_Karjakin: If all ratings between February 2020 and November 2020 would be missing, there would be a diagonal line between January 2020 and January 2021. Which would be of of course wrong. For Bent Larsen on the page de:Template:Elo-Diagramm, it is even more apparent, that the line would be wrongly diagonal if the constant ratings between January 2005 and October 2008 would be removed. Steak (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do we need the top 100 Elo, for example, for January 2009?
"Which would be of of course wrong" - Not at all, the graph only shows the trend, and not the super-accurate value of the rating. Игорь Темиров (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
You simply don't know what people need. Why would you not need a top Elo list of a given rating period? You cannot simply say "We don't need it". Currently the possibility is there, and you want to destroy it without need. And regarding the Graph: No, if the graphs shows a line at rating 2700, when in reality the rating was 2750, then the graph is at least misleading. Steak (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Steak presumably there should be no diagonal lines, because the rating is not only merely not-everywhere-smooth but actually discontinuous. So probably interpolate: step-after is what you need somewhere in there? See https://vega.github.io/vega/examples/line-chart/ for an example. Inductiveload (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, maybe, I don't know how this works exactly. Steak (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Steak Specifically, with interpolate: step-after you only need a data point when the value changes, so all the intermediate points are redundant. Inductiveload (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, for this usecase this might be fine. Still, for ratings lists of a given month, all ratings of that month are needed. Steak (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't mind the periodical updates. The frequency is IMHO debatable. I (still) find the additions after a person died problematic. I thought we had stopped with that. For some uses, I just skip chess players. Occasionally, it happens that this drops a person that is otherwise notable. --- Jura 16:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
More general   Comment, not specifically for this exact ELO thing. Would it make more sense to farm out data-series like this (and other "heavy" uses like the famous found in taxon (P703) (e.g. see (E)-p-coumaric acid (Q99374)) to farm out to a separate, dedicated item? Specific templates can follow a relevant property (e.g. probably some kind of generic "has data series", qualified as needed) to the list and then happily inhale as much as it wants from there. Meanwhile, the actual item itself is not accruing a unbounded amount of data (multiplied by the number of "heavy" items certain projects want to use).
Are people using queries that that would be impractical for? Inductiveload (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

shouldn't this discussion be at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot? BrokenSegue (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if the Thread Opener wants to do changes in big scale, he should apply for a bot. Steak (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The ratings for September appeared. Summing up some of the discussion:

  • The edits are done by my bot.
  • Does not add new non-title players.
  • Sorts Elo occurrences by date without removing duplicates.
  • Adds ratings for September and the following months without duplicates.
  • Replaces the link to the FIDE's player card with the link to the regular rating list of FIDE (example, Q108360564) or olimpbase-file (Q108680205).

So good? Игорь Темиров (talk) 07:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree to the sorting and to the last point. Sorting is not needed. If you sort without changing the statements, I actually don't care if you do it or not. But don't remove retrieval date and the FIDE-IDs in the references. They are needed. For example, take Roman Popov (Q27530047) and Roman Popov (Q27530048). If you look at an Elo list, how would you distinguish between them? In this case, you could use the DoB, but this might be missing or even be the same. The only unique identifier is the ID, and therefore it is needed for every single statement. For this usecase, it does not matter if the profile page still exists or not. Steak (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Your example is useless. If we know the ID of a chess player, then we will find it in the rating list. But if his card has disappeared, then your link leads nowhere. For example, grandmasters Pal Benko (Q465247), Stanislav Bogdanovich (Q18544873), Oleg Chernikov (Q4513619), István Csom (Q874008), Gildardo García (Q11699820), Dmitry Kayumov (Q4218359), Gennady Kuzmin (Q1231236), Yrjo A. Rantanen (Q1338668), Radoslav Simic (Q4419655), Markus Stangl (Q90543), Sulava, Nenad (Q2284127), Dmitry Svetushkin (Q3774368), Miroslav Tosic (Q4461611), Predrag Trajkovic (Q4461781), Wolfgang Uhlmann (Q1510108), Arsen Yegiazarian (Q2120169). Make sure all your Elo links from these chess players are going nowhere. These are only grandmasters and only for the last two years. What to do with your links that have stopped working?! But you can still find it in the rating lists. Of course, replacing links with more reliable ones is needed. Игорь Темиров (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Игорь Темиров: Again, if you are running a bot you must make get approval on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. Looking at your history I see lots of bot edits without approval. Sorting ELO statements is not valuable. Also can you go and nominate all the non-notable items you created for deletion. Example: Q108686706. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: Thanks. All this has already been discussed above. Except for deleting. A request for deletion was submitted, but did not find support. But, as I wrote above, I will not add chess players without titul in the future. Игорь Темиров (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Игорь Темиров: Can you give me a link to where request for deletion was submitted? I'm very surprised we decided to keep clearly non-notable people. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue: yes. Игорь Темиров (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
That request for deletion is still active and you are the only one opposed to deletion... BrokenSegue (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This topic is not about that. Игорь Темиров (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Steak wrote "How would you modify it?" I would simply add tests for start time (P580) and end time (P582). There is no problem in that, but the query will be slower because you need a filter (unlike for point in time (P585)!): 

SELECT ?item ?elo
WHERE
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item p:P1087 ?elo_stm .
  ?elo_stm ps:P1087 ?elo .
  {
    ?elo_stm pq:P585 "2009-01-00T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime .
  }
  UNION
  {
    ?elo_stm pq:P580 ?start_time .
    ?elo_stm pq:P582 ?end_time .
    FILTER (?start_time <= "2009-01-00T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime &&
            "2009-01-00T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime <= ?end_time)
  }
}
ORDER BY DESC(?elo)
LIMIT 100
Try it!

The German Elo graph template could also read P580/P582. Using them gives no loss of data. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I still doubt that this is useful. Let's say I want to know Magnus Carlsen rating in January 2009. Currently, I can simply query P585 = 01/01/2009. This would need to be replaced by a filter using start time and end time. This is not user friendly. Or, you can also reverse it: If want to know someones rating in June 1999, I would currently get no result, because there was not rating published. This would be totally correct! With your method, you would get some anachronistic misleading rating. Steak (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
And you also can't find out how many chess players have brown eyes on January 1, 2009. And who cares? We say real reasons, but you come up with useless ones. What for? Игорь Темиров (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
But if you really want to, then, for example, Carlsen's rating for August 1, 2021. As you can see, the March rating is obtained. So after March, the rating was not entered
SELECT ?value ?maxdate  WHERE  {
  {
    SELECT (max(?date) as ?maxdate) where {
     wd:Q106807 p:P1087 [pq:P585 ?date]
     FILTER (?date <= "2021-08-01"^^xsd:dateTime).           
      }
    }    
  wd:Q106807 p:P1087 ?rating.
  ?rating ps:P1087 ?value.
  ?rating pq:P585 ?date.
  FILTER (?date = ?maxdate)         
  }
Try it!

Игорь Темиров (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

datatype for en:Coxeter–Dynkin diagram?

Is it possible to create a property about Coxeter–Dynkin diagram (Q169451)? Currently, Coxeter–Dynkin diagram in English Wikipedia uses a LUA module to output multiple pictures. (like this      ) I have no idea which datatype can store that symbols.--[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 09:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@A2569875 I don't know about a datatype, but if there was a canonical serialisation format, you could use that (e.g. like w:SMILES) as a string.
If you have an image, you could use image (P18) → the file, and then qualify with object has role (P3831) → Coxeter–Dynkin diagram (Q169451)? Inductiveload (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible create a datatype like Help:Data_type#Chess?--[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 05:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
You may want to propose a new property instead of a new datatype.--GZWDer (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
But how? convert the node-edge graph into string?--[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 06:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there any standard way of representing these graphs as strings? If not, then using the "commons media file" is probably the best approach. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Asking... en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#about_Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram, en:Talk:Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram#store_into_wikidata. Please wait. --[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 10:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tomruen:. --[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 13:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I got some comment from English Wikipedia en:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#about_Coxeter–Dynkin_diagram. Tom Ruen say that Coxeter–Dynkin diagram (Q169451) can be representing as an Ascii strings like x4o3o for       ({{CDD|node_1|4|node|3|node}}). In the Wikidata:Property proposal/Bowers acronym, we noticed that some of the symbol text used in the URL (https://bendwavy.org/klitzing/incmats/$1.htm) is actually a Coxeter–Dynkin diagram (Q169451), not a Bowers acronym (P9997). For example, bowers acronym of Infinite-order triangular tiling (Q17077551) are aztrat, link is https://bendwavy.org/klitzing/incmats/x3oinfino.htm ; the symbol “x3oinfino”(x3o∞o,      ) is not a Bowers acronym, it is en:Coxeter–Dynkin diagram. In the klitzing's website, there is also a page that explains how to representing these graphs as strings, https://bendwavy.org/klitzing/explain/dynkin-notation.htm . @MSGJ, Inductiveload:, Can we use this symbols system create a property for Coxeter–Dynkin diagram (Q169451)? If allowed, I will propose the property later. --[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 15:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

geographic region (Q82794) and territory (Q1496967)

Hello,

The two look very similar to me. Should they be merged? Is one a subclass of the other? --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the German-language Wikipedia, geographic region (Q82794) and territory (Q1496967) are two different things. I would have to take a closer look at the German-language articles to explain why this is so. But only because of the articles de:Region (Q82794) and de:Gebiet (Q1496967) you cannot merge the two data objects. --Gymnicus (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I would love to hear more from a German speaker. But it seems like de:Gebiet is not so much about a specific concept, as about a word which can mean de:Region or more specific things. At this point I am in favor of disconnecting de:Gebiet from the item (and perhaps giving it an another item about the word Gebiet) and merging. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit that I don't understand the breakup you are aiming for. What is the point of this separation, except that the data object then has a higher number? The data object territory (Q1496967) was created in 2012 for the German article de:Gebiet. Why should you change that now? If the information in the data object is incorrect, then you have to correct it, but not simply create a new data object. --Gymnicus (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@GrandEscogriffe Isn't geographic region (Q82794) any defined 3D or 2D space anywhere? Eg. region of a galaxy, region in mathematics, etc Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál: In the German language Wikipedia, the region is defined as follows: „Region bezeichnet in der Geographie und der Raumordnung ein anhand bestimmter Merkmale abgegrenztes Teilgebiet der Erdoberfläche.” (english: “In geography and spatial planning, a region denotes a sub-area of ​​the earth's surface that is delimited on the basis of certain characteristics.”) --Gymnicus (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál: there is a mismatch between the descriptions of geographic region (Q82794) on one side (according to which it can be geographic, spatial or mathematical), and its placement within larger classes and the content of the wp articles on the other side (according to which it is only geographical, i.e. on earth). The descriptions of Q1496967 seem actually more fitted to what Q82794 does.
@Gymnicus: The problem that I want to solve is that about one thousand items which are clearly geographic regions get marked as instances or subclasses of territory (Q1496967) instead of geographic region (Q82794). --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@GrandEscogriffe I guess we should make geographic region (Q82794) more general then, shouldn't we? Generalization of the concept (in line with its description) will not harm the existing uses too much. territory (Q1496967) will then be a subclass of geographic region (Q82794). This way, Wikidata can accomodate both of these items. Would that make sense? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Described at url

With this edit someone deleted my addition of a url for a human. They wrote "a mere mention by name is not a 'describe' ", but I believe we have always allowed that. We do not need a full biography of someone. Should the deletion be reversed? --RAN (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The page found at the URL does not in any meaningful way at all describe the item's subject, and so it's a completely unsuitable value for described at URL (P973), which as a bare minimum, requires the linked page to describe the subject. Here's the full section relating to the item's subject: "For the 2011/12 season Schöneiche has budgeted 33,000 euros for the disposal of street leaves in front of private properties, says Beate Cyron, deputy head of the construction depot." In what way does that describe Beate Cyron? SMH. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
If I was to write a biography of an obscure person, I would want to find every scrap of information on that person. Other than your personal animosity towards me, what makes it "completely unsuitable", how information dense is it required to be? It perfectly describes him as the "deputy head of the construction depot". --RAN (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
You are confusing what might legitimately be used as a reference URL (P854) for an occupation (P106) property statement, with something that describes the subject. For sure there's a continuum between the two, and though it's hard to articulate where the line is drawn, your article is not within many dustbin wagon's length of it, and on the wrong side. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Then tell me exactly how described_at_url must be used, so we can construct a bot to delete all that do not meet the requirement. We need objective rules, not subjective ones that are followed by ad hoc deletion, that is how you end up with a database skewed by selection bias. If it can't be described so that a bot can make the decision, we should not have it. --RAN (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Your supposition that a bot could be written to analyse whether a page meets a rule-based set of requirements is niave or petulant, not least in the context of "though it's hard to articulate where the line is drawn". Whereas objective rules, to the extent they can be written, are doubtless desirable, we are still left with the unbridgable chasm between an incidental mention in an article about street cleaning, and a description of a person. If a single take-away will pacify you, the linked page should be substantially (i.e. mostly) about the subject and/or provide substantial (a plurality of) information about the subject. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • So substantially=51% of the sentences, or 51% of the paragraphs, or 51% of the pages of a book, which is it? By your rule I could not use the url for a list of war dead for a WWI veteran killed in action, since they are just one name on the list. I could not use a url of a list of Holocaust victims. Would that be true? Both of these are active projects. Argue the case before us, not the person presenting the case. There is no need to call me "niave [sic] or petulant". I would love to hear other people's opinions, thank you for yours. --RAN (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're getting there. You would not use the url for a list of war dead for a WWI veteran killed in action, since they are just one name on the list. You might use that list as a reference for a claim. Meanwhile, I'm trying not to make rules. You are - still petulantly - wobbling along with "51% of the sentences, or 51% of the paragraphs, or 51% of the pages of a book, which is it?" nonsense, as if the duck test didn't exist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Subjective "duck tests" lead to selection bias, which we should avoid, its another way of saying "I don't like it". --RAN (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think described at URL (P973) is appropriate here. --99of9 (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
gtyhg!-_=+\[ 78.190.239.206 06:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Would that URL not be more suitable as a reference for, say, a position held (P39) statement? It seems to me that described at URL (P973) implies that the URL is specifically about the subject (i.e. if a URL were an item, it would have a main subject (P921), the value of that property being the subject). Inductiveload (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


  • (Someone edit conflicted this response into non-existence so here it is again) I would think it should provide more than a passing mention of the subject to count. If it just provides one or two facts then use it as a reference for those facts instead. This is always going to be subjective though. BrokenSegue (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Of course if the deleter had done that as opposed to the deletion, I would not have complained. Of course, not all facts fit neatly into our pre-defined categories, so it is helpful to have a place to store facts that do not fit easily into those categories, so the next editor can find them. Deleted no one sees them. --RAN (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Introducing P10000: Research Vocabularies Australia ID

Research Vocabularies Australia ID (P10000) has arrived.

"Research Vocabularies Australia (Q41147961) helps you find, access, and reuse vocabularies for research." This site is part of Australian Research Data Commons (Q4824459). The property, created today by User:UWashPrincipalCataloger (Thanks!), is an identifier for a vocabulary (not necessarily Australian) in the R.V.A. database. Many of these vocabularies are themselves well known to us, and have identifier properties on Wikidata, such as Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names ID (P1667), ANZSRC 2020 FoR ID (P8529), and Australian Faunal Directory ID (P6039). My hope is that we may find more databases in their growing set that we in turn may use as useful properties. If you would like to help matching this catalogue, head over to (brilliant tool) Mix'n'Match set 4770.

This milestone arrived after a week of 42 property approvals, and there are plenty more to discuss in the pipeline. (15 of those proposed in the last week are Australia-related, because I was angling at hooking this milestone! Amongst those, I think R.V.A. is perhaps the most appropriate meta-vocabulary-data for a celebration of our project.)

I'm a particular fan of identifier properties, because they make Wikidata the backbone of the authority control network. They also expand the utility of Entity Explosion, a free browser extension I built to showcase and make use of Wikidata external links. So I've been keen for a long time on making sure all high-quality online databases in my country have properties and Mix'n'Match sets, and use a properties-by-country dashboard to keep track of how each country is going (using the brilliant integraality). If you're interested in proposing a property about your speciality, your interests, or your location, please don't hesitate. The template is intimidating at first, but you can always view the source of other proposals, and other users will come to your aid anyway. If you're already an experienced user, especially if you are scraping or regex-savvy, I'd suggest challenging yourself by setting up a Mix'n'Match set for a property that doesn't yet have one.

Congratulations to the community on jointly building the amazing project that is Wikidata. --99of9 (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #490

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Tool of the week
  • Development
    • Mismatch Finder: We are continuing the work on the review part of the system. We are working on letting reviewers submit their decision if the mismatch is on Wikidata, the other database, both or neither.
    • In the previous week we migrated all Wikimedia wikis to use the new change dispatching system. This system is responsible for notifying the other wikis about edits made on Wikidata that affect their articles so the article is refreshed and edits are added to recent changes and watchlists. This week we monitored the new system and investigated and fixed a few issues that came up.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

Please add an underscore as part of the scheme for Swedish Portrait ID

See Gustaf Robert Edström (Q5627420) where the url scheme uses an underscore. --RAN (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! --RAN (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DOI (P356)

Could somebody have a look on property Property:P356? Somebody changed the constraint violation and now a point is a violation. Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chris.urs-o: User:Ivan A. Krestinin removed some '\' escape characters from one of the format constraints a couple of weeks ago, but maybe that's not the problem you're seeing? Can you point to a case where there's a problem right now? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I was the one removing the unnecessary escapes. The issue was there already though, my changes only made it visible - before my edit, the evaluation of the regex produced an error, so it was unable to determine whether there were any constraint violations. - Nikki (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

How to set quantity (P1114)/numeric value (P1181) as infinity, or other special values?

Some geometric shape (Q815741) need to describe by an Euler characteristic (Q852973). For example, a cube (Q812880) has 6 faces, 12 edges, and 8 vertices:

has part(s) of the class
  face edit
quantity 6
shape square
0 references
add reference
  side edit
quantity 12
0 references
add reference
  vertex edit
quantity 8
0 references
add reference


add value
has facet polytope
  square edit
quantity 6
0 references
add reference


add value

But some geometric shape (Q815741) has infinitely many faces, edges or vertices. for example apeirogonal tiling (Q4779315):

has part(s) of the class
  face edit
quantity 2
shape apeirogon
0 references
add reference
  side edit
quantity infinity
0 references
add reference
  vertex edit
quantity infinity
0 references
add reference


add value

Another example is apeirogon (Q4779316). It contains infinitely many edges:

has facet polytope
  side edit
quantity infinity
0 references
add reference


add value

So, How to set quantity (P1114) as infinity?--[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 08:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is no way to represent infinity in a quantity-valued property. Toni 001 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Toni 001:. So, How can I describe "apeirogon (Q4779316) contains infinitely many edges" and "Mucube (Q11420123) contains infinitely many square (Q164) faces" in wikidata? value known, but too large for datatype (Q54767019)??--[雪菲🐉蛋糕🎂] >梓< [娜娜奇🐰鮮果茶☕]（☎️·☘️） 14:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps use <no value> on any numeric properties and then use has characteristic (P1552) instead to state that certain property values are infinite? defining formula (P2534) could potentially be used in some way to represent irrational numbers. --Dhx1 (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Compiling Wikiquote contributions stats through Wikidata

Hello, How can I use Wikidata to compile stats of how many Wikiquote have been contributed in the last 30 or 60 days is there a query for such regards, user:Shoodho

@Shoodho: Wikidata may not be the best tool for that, depending on how you define "contributing a Wikiquote". Do you mean all new pages created on any Wikiquote language version in a given time window? Or do you only count new Wikidata items, or updated Wikidata items? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, is it possible to get a sorted list for the new pages Wikiquote articles per language, and also to find out improved or edited Wikiquote articles. Which tool would you recommend if Wikidata is not the best tool. Shoodho (talk) 17:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
For new pages I'd recommend using Special:NewPages (exists in all language versions). For statistics, you better use https://quarry.wmcloud.org/ but I'm unable to write a quick query for you there. Someone else might be able to help you. Same for edited pages there. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Constraints for Podcasts

Why are there constraint flags on, for example, dot com: The Wikipedia Story (Q108929215), saying it should not have author (P50), inception (P571) or full work available at URL (P953) values? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: there's a couple of cases where the community seems to prefer start time (P580) and end time (P582) instead of inception (P571) & co. I believe author (P50) is thought to be ambiguous in the case of podcasts. There's always the generic creator (P170), but founded by (P112), producer (P162) and presenter (P371) are often a good fit as well.
The constraint against full work available at URL (P953) is debatable. I'd say the intention is to only link podcasts episodes directly to their download links. Ideally, the acast and Amazon link would be external identifiers. If the full work/podcast was made available on a one-off website by the creator, I'd say full work available at URL (P953) would be the best fit. You could also change the acast/amazon links to go directly to the feed and use web feed URL (P1019), or keep them and use described at URL (P973). --Azertus (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm looking for the reasons why the community might prefer such constraints (and indeed, looking to determine whether or not there is consensus). In this specific example, the writer is also the producer, but is not the presenter; "creator" is simply too vague. She is credited as the "writer", for which "author" is a synonym. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Link Wikidata ids to Wikipedia text

I am trying to build a multilingual dataset from Wikipedia. As part of its features, I would like the entities mentioned in the text to be related to their Wikidata id.

For example, given the page "Wikidata", the intro states: Wikidata is a collaboratively edited multilingual knowledge graph hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation.[2] It is a common source of open data that Wikimedia projects such as Wikipedia,[3][4] and anyone else, can use under the CC0 public domain license. [...]

Here, each link points to a Wikipedia page, which should have its own Wikidata id.

At minimum, for collaboratively edited (page: Wiki) I would like to get Q171 (Wikidata item for Wiki). At best, I would like to get the id, the item name, the position in text.

I need to do this for the whole Wikipedia, in multiple languages. Thus, I am looking for a solution that is very fast (a dump that already contains this info would be great, but I am not sure it exists).

Do you have any advice?

I've worked some on this. I do not think there is a pre-assembled dataset that includes this. You'll have to assemble it yourself. BrokenSegue (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Do you have any reference for where to start? It seems to me it should be relatively easy (basically each internal link is a Wikidata item) but I cannot find many references and it is the first time I try to work with Wiki-related APIs and files. 5.170.104.126 17:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
It sounds similar to KELM-corpus, which is also described here. You can probably get what you want after combining quadruples from TEKGEN and kelm_generated_corpus.jsonl. Lockal (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

edit warring

having a little conflict with Kirilloparma (talk • contribs • logs). In my opinion, the number of available languages via {{Label}} is more important than its singular/plural form. - Coagulans (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

From here. After my explanation user proceeded to revert my edits instead of discussing. He believes that this is the standardization of country navigation templates, however I don't see any consensus on that and as I explained There are dozens of templates that are using plural (see Template:Games properties, Template:Authority control properties, Template:Denmark properties, Template:Italy properties, Template:Lithuania properties etc.) and I don't see any problem here as each language should have its own grammatically correct label, so please let the other users to feel free to improve this template in good faith instead of removing or reverting ([11], [12]) without any good reason. Coagulans for some reason is not allowing me to improve this template despite that I'm assuming the good faith. He's suggesting to use an automated template {{Label}}, which is not always the best option here. So the question is: why I'm not free to improve this template without using automated template {{Label}}, is there any consensus that it must be necessarily used? Looking at Template:Authority control properties or Template:Geology properties as example I see no such schema suggested by Coagulans. Thoughts? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Available languages:
for video game (Q7889): {{Label}} - 131
for video games: {{LangSwitch}} - 9
Both forms are grammatically correct. - Coagulans (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

new girl

i am new too wikipedia can anyone tell me what else we do here  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szastrocky.2023 (talk • contribs) at 14:47‎, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

Responded on user talk Vahurzpu (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge scary - me run away

Well, I'm buried at the moment and can't take the time to learn about the scary merge process. If someone else can take this on, it'd be great. Otherwise long time to enough free time for me.

Creating author entry at en.wikisource. Thought to look for entry here for Horace James. Found two entries:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96381241     Horace James
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q94683234     Horace James

They both seem to contain info not present in the other. The wikipedia article w:Horace James (minister) links to the first listed entry. But the first entry doesn't have date of death like the second does!

And if you are feeling capable, while looking for Horace James I found

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108427284 Scovell, Horace James
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q76201686 Horace James Scovell

which again seems like duplicate entries for the same person. Shenme (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Shenme: I merged the first pair. Thanks for noticing it, it's a very common situation that Wikidata has an item for something (like this person) and then enwiki creates an article about them and a new Wikidata item is created based on that, completely ignoring the fact that Wikidata already has it. There really should be a UI fix to reduce this sort of problem somehow. Anyway... On the second pair, the first is an article about the second, so two different items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But now he was born twice? Scary! :-) Shenme (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you again. Now I can sleep soundly. Shenme (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Coolest Tool Award 2021: Call for nominations

 

The third edition of the m:Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations!

Tools play an essential role for the Wikimedia projects, and so do the many volunteer developers who experiment with new ideas and develop and maintain local and global solutions to support the Wikimedia communities. The Coolest Tool Award aims to recognize and celebrate the coolest tools in a variety of categories.

The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in December. Deadline to submit nominations is October 27. More information: m:Coolest Tool Award. Thanks for your recommendations! -- SSethi (WMF) for the 2021 Coolest Tool Academy team 05:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

tbh, this goes down like a cup of baby sick, in the context of the tools we actually depend on - Petscan and Listeria, for instance - being somewhat broken. I'd very much trade 'cool tools' for WMF support for basic working tools & fit for purpose UI. WMF's concentration on frothy initiatives like this, rather than on assisting in the provision of core tools, seems to me to be an abdication of responsibility by a group of people who do not eat their own dogfood, are unaffected by the shortcomings, and who are frankly semi- or wholly-detached from - even ignorant of - the practical work involved in adding and curating content on WP and WD. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The allowed units constraint and unit dimension

Hello.

The allowed units constraint (Q21514353) lists units allowed for a quantity-valued property and notifies an editor if a statement was entered using a unit not in that list. If the editor sees the notification then there are two possible things to do: Add the unit to the list of allowed units or consider using (or proposing) a different property.

To help editors in deciding what to do I'll give a quick explanation: A unit, say, joule per metre (Q56023789), is used to express a variety of quantities, indicated by measured physical quantity (P111). This list need not be exhaustive - there might be subclasses of any of those quantities (like radius (Q173817) being a subclass of length (Q36253)), and those can be expressed in the same unit. All quantities related to a unit in this way have something in common: They have the same value for ISQ dimension (P4020). When two units express quantities with the same dimension then those units are called compatible - they can be converted into each other and values expressed in those units can be compared. Now, for our quantity-valued properties we should try to allow only compatible units. An example: If a property initially allowed energy (Q11379) units, say, joule (Q25269) and electronvolt (Q83327), and you want to enter a value given in joule per kilogram (Q57175225), then you should rather find a different property - one that expresses specific energy (Q3023293).

I recently did a survey of properties and found 25 which violated that principle. Some were easy or slightly difficult to fix, now we are down to 17. Here are the remaining ones: 

select distinct ?prop ?propLabel where {
  ?prop wikibase:propertyType wikibase:Quantity .
  ?prop p:P2302 [
    ps:P2302 wd:Q21514353 ;
    pq:P2305 / wdt:P111 / wdt:P4020 ?dim1 ;
    pq:P2305 / wdt:P111 / wdt:P4020 ?dim2 ;
  ] .
  filter (! sameTerm(?dim1, ?dim2))
  service wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" }
}
Try it!

Feel free to have a look and see whether any of those remaining ones can be improved or split into more specific properties.

Best wishes, Toni 001 (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  • @Toni 001: I don't think that anything can be done with concentration (P6274) and solubility (P2177). These two are used with so many different units that splitting it to different properties would be impractical. Also, I see that molar mass added using mass (P2067) is being deleted in some items — years ago 'molar mass' property was rejected, because of the existence of mass (P2067). It seems that 'molar mass' property should be proposed once again. Wostr (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, previously abandoned property proposals could indeed be revived using the argument of unit compatibility.
    Regarding concentration (P6274): With its 80 values it so far borders on being not-so-notable; I'd suggest that any contributor planning to enter some hundred values consider proposing a new property with a definite unit dimension. Toni 001 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Gadgets broken

Please anyone know how to fix editing scripts: User talk:Magnus Manske/wikidata useful.js#Stopped working and seems User:MichaelSchoenitzer/quickpresets.js too. --Infovarius (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I had the same issue with WUS and repaired it according this. JAn Dudík (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Learn how Movement Strategy Implementation Grants can support your Movement Strategy plans

Participate Movement Charter Drafting committee election!

Your participation is needed. Community elections for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee last until October 24 (23:59 AoE). We have gathered 600 votes. It would be great to increase community participation. Let’s try to double that number! Please vote before October 24

Learn how Movement Strategy Implementation Grants can support your Movement Strategy plans

The Movement Strategy Implementation Grants give the support you need for your strategy plans. The Movement Strategy and Governance team is here to support your ideas and plans. Learn more.

--*Youngjin (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two similar albums, two Wikidata items?

Q108266229 is the item for w:Sticker (album). In four days another version of the album will be released named Favorite with a few different tracks and, obviously, a different title. Should this be integrated into Q108266229 (how?) or should a new item be created for this new version? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of the claims will be different, it will be the same artist/label, but a different release date, release#. And as one item can have only one title (in a language) you will have no choice: two items. Edoderoo (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki language links

Existe un artículo en castellano, y también en idioma ruso, quisiera agregalo para que aparezca también en la barra de idiomas a seleccionar. ¿de qué manera se realiza esto?

It would be helpful if you could provide links to the two articles. If they have the same subject, then they should be linked to a single WD item, which will make the interwiki links work. Once we know which articles you're talking about, we can advise further. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Population density

Hello friends,

Do we have a property for "Population density"? Population density is an important component of population. If we don't already have property for population density. Can we create it as a qualifier for population (Property:1082) or as a separate value? Regards. T Cells (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@T_Cells: isn't it easily derived by doing population/area (which you can do in SPARQL)?
Or you might be able to use density (P2054) and make a new entity: unit that is "people per unit area." Justin0x2004 (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
@Justin0x2004:, I wasn't asking about how to determine population density. I was asking if we already have property for population density or as a separate value or a qualifier for population (Property:1082). Regards. T Cells (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@T Cells I know but there are some things that we wouldn't store in Wikidata. For example we wouldn't store the number of characters in a person's name because it is easy to derive on the fly. I was thinking that population density might be such a thing. Justin0x2004 (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not such a thing. Popular density is an important component of population. T Cells (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@T Cells Yes, it's important, but easily calculable from population and area. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Also volumetric number density (Q176449) is related... though you want "count per area." Justin0x2004 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems that we don't have such a property. We should maintain consistent units within a property, therefore we can't reuse existing population or (mass) density properties. Instead a new property could be proposed. I took the liberty to create items for the corresponding quantity (human population areal density (Q108913965)) and a unit (person per square kilometre (Q108913970)). Toni 001 (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@Toni_001:
> We should maintain consistent units within a property
I don't think that is true. For example concentration (P6274) has at least a dozen different units that are allowed. Creating a new property for each distinct unit makes Wikidata less able to semantically generalize. A property proposal for human population areal density (Q108913965) would be excessively specific. e.g. What if I want to represent the population density of Danaus plexippus (Q212398) or badger (Q638105)? Do I need to go through more property proposal processes?
I think we could accommodate this request in a more general way by looking for or proposing a corresponding property of areal number density (Q108914965).
Justin0x2004 (talk) Justin0x2004 (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello. concentration (P6274) is an outlier and should not be followed, see my detailed explanation here.
Note that human population areal density (Q108913965) is a subclass of population areal density (Q108913962); the latter refers to any species. There are different ways to model population density: one would be to create a property for each species; the other option is to create a more general one and add a species-qualifier. That's up to the community to discuss. Toni 001 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Toni 001 I think we are creating duplicates.
areal number density (Q108914965) and number of entities per area (Q108914597). Justin0x2004 (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is a point to explicitly adding population density as a new property if it's easily computable from other properties we already have. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

An argument in favor is being able to enter values as given in a source - without any computation which might incur errors. Toni 001 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Toni 001 Fair point. Justin0x2004 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

postal code

postal code (P281) is singular (all the labels and descriptions). It is equivalent to <http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#postal-code> whose label and comment are also singular.

But it looks like we have some use of em dash to designate a range of zip codes (plural). I think the only reason for doing so is that enumerating all the postal codes for a region such as New York City (Q60) makes the web UI content take up a lot of space... and it adds more triples. But clearly if web UI content consideration and triple count wasn't a concern we would want to store each of the postal codes in a range individually.

Do we need another property called "postal code range?" It seems like a mistake to put a range in the same property that we use for single codes.

I wonder how many kludges like this (using a property intended for singular thing for a plural thing instead) we have just because we are worried about web UI content length and triple count.

cc @NM1982:

Justin0x2004 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Justin0x2004 It sounds very reasonable to me to create a new property, probably two of them - something like "postal code range minimum" and "postal code range maximum". Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that would be problematic if a place has two disjoint ranges of postal codes. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@BrokenSegue True. What about postal code (P281) : somevalue with those two properties in qualifiers? Does it make some sense? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál
It could work but I think the simple solution is staring us in the face: just put each postal code in Wikidata.
That is the most SPARQL query friendly thing to do. Justin0x2004 (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Justin0x2004 Yes, SPARQL friendly, but some pages have so many statements they can hardly be loaded in a browser. I wonder if we should try to prevent properties with a potential to have so many statements per item. Or is this not a big deal? Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál I don't think Wikidata should make data representation sacrifices just because the Wikidata web UI doesn't load defensively. That is to say, I think the Wikidata Web UI should collapse statements groups if it thinks there are too many to display. I contribute to and use Wikidata for the data not the Web UI and I suspect most Wikidata contributors feel the same way. Justin0x2004 (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Justin0x2004 I agree, but it's not only about Wikidata UI. Pages with many statements also have issues in infobox Lua modules and quite possibly in some tools as well. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Classes and instances

I was unable to find an answer in the help pages to what is probably a beginner question, but an important one nonetheless.

If I'm understanding things correctly, the categorization tree on wikidata is constructed entirely by use of subclasses, and the entities used for this shall not be an instance of anything else. All "real things" however should be an instance of one of these categorization entities, but it is probably strictly an error to make them a subclass of something else. Have I understood the organization of data correctly or am I way off? Thank you in advance. --Infrastruktur wdt:P31 wd:Q5 (T | C) 00:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's actually fairly common in WD to have items that are both instances and subclasses - see xylographer (Q1437754) for an example. Most occupations are modeled this way. - PKM (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Infrastruktur: so plenty of "real thing"s are subclass of (P279) of something. Generally physical/tangible things are instance of (P31) of something but this is not always true. Concepts are more likely to be subclass of (P279) but that's not close to a rule see for example biology (Q420). BrokenSegue (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Does entities that use subclass of (P279) imply that they are meant to be used for classification, or at least can be used for that? And conversely items that doesn't use subclass of (P279) can not be used for classification? As for instance of (P31) I guess it would be an error to have an entity that is an instance of something that is an instance itself? (unless it also has the subclass statement) --Infrastruktur wdt:P31 wd:Q5 (T | C) 02:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC) 
You should only be instance of (P31) of something that is a subclass. It's a little hard to say if something is used for classification in general. Items can represent concepts and sometimes those concepts have instances. computer model (Q55990535) is used for classification and it's both instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279). Honestly wikidata isn't super self-consistent and you need to learn the style used. For example we never say something is instance of (P31) horror film (Q200092) even though it's a subclass of film (Q11424) (because we have genre (P136)). BrokenSegue (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Some instances are only so because of convenience. Protein instances can include a lot of things so are actually sets and would need to be subclasses. My take after two years is that P31 and P279 are practically the same. If I were an AI developer using WD I would not handle these statements separately. --SCIdude (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Infrastruktur: The responses above indicate some confusion among the community here but I believe the underlying ontological logic is sound, if not always applied correctly. instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) are indeed very different. subclass of (P279) for example is transitive while instance of (P31) is not. instance of (P31) points from the level of individual physical objects (locations, particular people, individual vehicles, etc.) to their classes, but it can also point from the level of classes to metaclasses, metaclasses to second-order metaclasses, etc. subclass of (P279) relationships stay within a single class/metaclass layer. Though we do have some concepts that cross metaclass levels which confuses things a bit. The explanation at Help:BMP is quite good though. See also Wikidata:WikiProject Ontology. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Canadian Women Artists History Initiative ID (P8631)

Can someone change Canadian Women Artists History Initiative ID (P8631) to allow use in a reference (as reference (Q54828450)) (as, for instance, is allowed by Dictionary of Canadian Biography ID (P2753))? It's a biographical dictionary that seems reliable and so I think it should be permissible as a reference. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk to the Community Tech

 

Read this message in another language

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will begin on 27 October (Wednesday) at 14:30 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Update on the disambiguation and the real-time preview wishes
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Complex multi level property ontology design?

Hi there,

I am considering using Wikidata as a backing database for an academic project (read: eventually described in a literature publication) to have computationally accessible & rich metadata for all the bioluminescent species (aka taxa) of the world.

As I see it now, this would involve proposing quite a few Wikidata properties. I understand the process to submit a new Wikidata property proposal (See: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P6800 , proposal here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/has_sequenced_genome), but what I don't understand is how to design a more complex Wikidata ontology, e.g. that has sub-properties or uses qualifiers. For example, I might propose this property or other sub-properties (or qualifiers):

  • taxon has bioluminescence (boolean true/false)
  • taxon has autogenic bioluminescence (boolean true/false) (could be a qualifer on the above property, or an independent "sub-property"?)
  • taxon has symbiotic bioluminescence (boolean true/false)


  • taxon has body-internal bioluminescence (boolean true/false) [This could even be divided into cell intrinsic vs body cavity, as some taxa secrete into a body cavity]
  • taxon has body-external secreted bioluminescence (boolean true/false) [e.g. Cypridinidae, some ostracods]


  • taxon has neuronal control of bioluminescent intensity and/or kinetics (boolean true/false) [Restricted to animals]
  • taxon effector neurotransmitter for bioluminescent control is (Wikidata compound link, e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q424979, for Photinus pyralis)
  • taxon produces single-color bioluminescece (boolean true/false)
  • taxon produces multi-color bioluminesence (boolean true/false)


  • taxon in vivo bioluminescent peak emission wavelength (integer / float, would be wavelengths in nanometers, and would have to be flexible as there may be multicolor bioluminescence)
  • taxon luciferase in vitro bioluminescent peak emission wavelength (integer / float, would be wavelengths in nanometers, and would have to be flexible as there may be multicolor bioluminescence)



  • taxon high-level habitat is (Something like marine vs terrestrial vs freshwater)

The other trick, is while the most "explicit" way to apply these properties, would be to apply them to lower level taxon Wikidata items (e.g. all 2000+ firefly [Lampyridae] species/Wikidata items that are thought to be bioluminescent), an "easier" way would be to apply to a higher level taxon like the family Lampyridae (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q25420). So, is there a way to specify in Wikidata that the property would automatically apply to all those descendent taxa that do not yet have an annotation, or would a Wikidata Bot be the only way to do that?

Another complexity: is even in some higher level taxonomic groupings that are almost entirely bioluminescent (e.g. Ctenophora) there are exceptions to the rule with lineages that seemingly are not luminescent. Would using the "opposite of" qualifier with the ``taxon has bioluminescence`` property be the correct way to apply annotate this fact?

Another complexity: Bioluminescence has independently evolved 100+ times in 2 of 3 of the domains of life (Bacteria and Eukaryota), and really varies quite a huge degree in terms of its physiology and ecological roles. So, the ontology has to take this into consideration: a too restrictive ontology or a too broad ontology will almost immediately run up against edge-cases in bioluminescence that will be an issue. In a way, I think bioluminescence is a way to "stress test" the other aspects of taxonomy, Cheminformatics, & ecology-informatics that are aspired to be developed on Wikidata or similar databases.

So, as you can see, I have a lot of thoughts. But the main thought: there could be a lot of ways to structure these properties/qualifiers as they do have inter-relationships that should be described / controlled.

Your thoughts? Are there some good guides/books on the structure of triplestore / graph databases & Wikidata in particular? and Are there any favorite tools to scope out such an ontology structure, or is it just drawing it out in a graph diagram tool like Draw.IO (https://github.com/jgraph/drawio-desktop)?

I will mention, the luciferins used in bioluminesence are natural products. I have been having some discussions with others in the Cheminformatic / Wikidata field (like @Egon_Willighagen) that the existing "found in taxon" property (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P703) alone, is IMO, too generic for cheminformatics in the bioluminescence field. A compound or luciferase being "found in a taxon" is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate other interesting biological things like small molecule or protein biosynthesis in the annotated taxon (coelenterazine, is widely distributed in oceanic food webs & is acquired in the diet & is accumulated in specialized ways & even possibly recycled) or the luciferase can be obtained from the diet and not encoded in the genome of the organisms which has specialized physiology to use and control it (See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptoprotein).

Apologies for pinging everybody if this is not the right way or place to discuss things. I am relatively new to Wikidata so please let me know if this is against norms. I also appreciate frank feedback if Wikidata is not the right place / not technically well suited for such a project.

  Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

Photocyte (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Unconvinced that new properties are required in many cases. has characteristic (P1552) with appropriate values (e.g. "has bioluminescence", "has autogenic bioluminescence", "has symbiotic bioluminescence" &c) might possibly work just as well?

Thank you, I was not aware of such an approach. I will consider that as well. Photocyte (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. That is a good path forward for most of your objectives. You can start by making items for things like "autogenic bioluminescence" which we haven't yet described in linked data! --99of9 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
There are two levels to annotate this, as there are two types of evidence. The evidence you probably have in mind is the observation of bioluminescence by the biologist describing the species. I agree with User:Photocyte how to handle this. The second level is the biochemical characterization of molecules and enzymes taking part in the biological process bioluminescence (Q179924). This usually is done by imports from the external UniProt database and results in statements like
If you are planning to add biochemical evidence please use these four statements as template. --SCIdude (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback & highlighting these existing properties@SCIdude! I will note, I added the P362 / "found in taxon" claims which you cite (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27125143#P361) , however that term is not sufficient to indicate biosynthesis in that taxa, which is really what I want to annotate, (vs dietary acquisition), but such an additional property biosynthesized by taxon is a broader natural products concept than something that would just apply to bioluminescence alone, so I would love to hear feedback on from the cheminformatic / natural product community as there may already be existing plans to structure this concept on Wikidata Photocyte (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC) edit of: 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just as a general note, Wikidata does not have a "Boolean" datatype, and I don't believe we have any properties that can be regarded as Boolean-valued. Boolean data can best be accommodated as suggested above, with an item-valued property. The non-Boolean properties suggested above are probably fine as far as I am aware. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
We have some pseudo-Boolean properties, for external identifiers where the value, if any, is always the QID of the item on which it appears. We don't need to store the QID a second time: all we are really doing is indicating "true". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I have also just discovered emergency services (P6855), which has example values including "yes " and "no". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please consider: either you know from analysis/mass spectroscopy that a molecule occurs in a taxon, this is modeled by P703 / "found in taxon". Or you know from characterization of specific enzyme that a molecule is biosynthesized. Biosynthesis of molecules is modeled in the Gene Ontology. In that case the enzyme item gets a P682 process statement. If your specific process is not in GO, submit an addition to them. --SCIdude (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback all! @SciDude, regarding GO annotation of enzyme biosynthetic activity: understood. However, you can know if a taxon biosynthesizes a given molecule, without any enzyme characterization, and I can even argue that enzyme characterization alone, e.g. heterologous expression, is insufficient to demonstrate an actual functional role in the taxon's biosynthesis of the taxon even if a literature source states that - see glycosyltransferases which have known broad substrate scopes & are very abundant family of enzymes in genomes - definitely possible that "the" glycosyltransferase for a given biosynthesis in vitro is not "the" in vivo. But in short, totally understood that there is a way to structure this by pushing more annotations at the gene/enzyme level & using Gene ontology (GO) type annotations. But at this stage, I'm not looking to recapitulate the functional annotations that Uniprot is doing (IMO, a pretty good job with) at Wikidata, but more interested in properties that make sense as a taxon annotation, both for bioluminescence (where they are unique) & for the greater natural products / cheminformatics community (where they intersect) Photocyte (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can I add "arbitrary persons" to wikidata (current use case: add scientific publications)

I am a new user, so I will probably ask seemingly naive questions. I am a researcher in engineering and I am a bit disappointed how little literature of my field is covered by wikidata (cf. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:ORCIDator). To help improving this situation I thought of using https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:ORCIDator. The first step there is: "Find or create the Wikidata item for a person". Thus I want to ask: 1. Can I just add persons with their name and maybe more information (e.g. university they are with, date of birth) to wikidata? 2. What is about privacy? 3. Is there any relevance threshold? Cark84 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

See WD:N. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cark84: See also Wikidata:Living people. In general published authors do qualify as notable for Wikidata purposes, but some of their personal information should still be considered private. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Always have enough information to disambiguate them from someone with the same name. For some people with common names we may have a dozen people listed as only an author of a book or only an author of a research article, and no way to know if they are duplicates or distinct people. Link to their profile page at the university, if they have one. --RAN (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the differnent between these items?

These items seems duplicate as far as I see, but bot sure.

Is there a way to konw these are same or not? --Suisui (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Suisui: To me this looks like double or multiple creations. Something must have gone wrong with MonicaMu's batch. At first glance it seems to me that you can merge the respective data objects. --Gymnicus (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
There's a known quickstatements issue, which is that it will create 2 or more items per CREATE statement, for a subset of CREATE statements, in batch-mode. Doesn't occur when using client-side quickstatements. Presumably a race condition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T234162
Thanks. hmmm known issue.. Should I redirect one to another, or just leave it as it is? --Suisui (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Merge away, Suisui. Cleanup in isle 9. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"harmful" descriptions?

Recently (I can't recall the exact item), I tried to add the description "American businessman and foundation administrator" to a human item (try it on any item yourself). However, I repeatedly get the message "This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: LTA AI". I have never encountered such warnings before. Is there a log somewhere of material deemed "harmful" and "disallowed"? And I fail to see how this particular phrase is "harmful" or abuse: it was the same description used in a reference source (I believe Prabook (Q25328680), which draws heavily from published "Who's Who..." biographical dictionaries). What gives? -Animalparty (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox string

Should Sandbox-String (P370) be used on non-sandbox items? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't imagine any reason to do so, I assume cases like Severance Hospital (Q625321) are where somebody accidentally used the wrong property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #491

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • QID ("Initialism of Q-identifier, a unique identifier for an item in Wikidata. [from 2012]") now has an entry in Wiktionary
    • The 3rd edition of the Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations (see announcement on wikimedia-l). Please submit your favorite tools by October 27th. The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in December.
  • Development
    • The new WDQS Streaming Updater now fully shipped to production. This will help the Query Service better deal with the amount of edits happening on Wikidata. (more information)
    • Mismatch Finder: Continuing work on the results page where mismatches are shown for review. We are focusing on showing all necessary information for a mismatch to make a good determination if it is a mismatch in Wikidata, the external source or neither.
    • Finishing the work on the new change dispatching system that improves how Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects are notified about edits happening on Wikidata that affect them. Currently tying up some lose ends.
    • Preparing for WikidataCon.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here. If you want to help, you can also have a look at the tasks needing a volunteer.

"To the Editor" items

Hello, we have ~400 items with mostly duplicate information. Some examples:

Maybe its are article and comments for the article. Comments items have wrong DOI (P356), incorrect instance of (P31), title, title (P1476) and most probably other properties. I am not sure how to deal with such items. Its are too hard for manual fix such amount of items. Bot will have troubles too with fixing all wrong properties. I prefer to delete all items with "#SA" postfixes it DOI values. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Q43168220, Q40549052, there does not seem to be duplication going on. There are two articles, by two distinct sets of people, on the same page, and as replies to the same initial paper - see the pubmed external ID links. I don't know DOI well enough to opine, but to the extent there is a problem, it is with a DOI having a suffix #SA and/or both papers having the same DOI. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
While DOI is almost always a unique identifier there are exceptions which these might be representatives of. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

New item created yet, didn't show up in a statement bar

Hello, I'm creating an identifier (Q109246569) for another created new item for Japanese anime database called "anikore" (Q109246386) but when I enter a item in Wikidata property statement of main item, it wasn't up even I have just created it.

I hope you would solved the problem.

Thanks, Greefan443 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Greefan443: You do not need to delete Q109246569 - it's perfectly fine to have an item for the ID, as well as a property. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata protected edit requests needs attention

Please help. Some requests await decision a/o item editing by confirmed users for a couple of days/weeks now. I noticed this when posting at Talk:Q947103 today. 2003:E5:3709:5C00:2128:B49D:6E5A:AC06 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

authority_control.js

Is Magnus's script, authority_control.js at working? It has stopped for me, for a couple of days. It seems busy, but makes no changes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The reason is probably phab:T280806, which had many deadlines. I tried to fix the script, but wasn't able to test an action. Please tell me if it now works for you. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: Working now, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:48, 30 October 2021 (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) 08:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between mythical group of characters (Q24577895) and group of mythical characters (Q20830276)?

Apart from the position of the adjective, there is nothing different, in my way of understanding, in the idea that underlies both expressions: a (mythical) group of (mythical) characters. I also do not understand what is the meaning of the description of the first item. Thanks --Fantastoria (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

group of mythical characters (Q20830276) appears to be for grouping mythical characters by type. For example, I could make a group of "heroic mythical characters" to include Hercules and King Arthur. They don't have anything in common other than an external classification of "hero" and they never appeared in the same myths.
mythical group of characters (Q24577895) appears to be for grouping mythical characters that appear in the same myth. For example, the Knights of the Round Table appear in the same myths as a group of heroic knights in King Arthur's court. Hercules could not be in the group as he was never in the same myths. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
So I could change the label of the first one to avoid ambiguity, let's say "mythological-character type." --Fantastoria (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe "mythological character class."? --Fantastoria (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

merge Ludwigshafen (Q32111700) and Ludwigshafen (Q2910)

I think these two items should be merged because they are the same city, but I wanted to ask first. Ludwigshafen (Q32111700) and Ludwigshafen (Q2910) Eastmain (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Both have cebwiki sitelinks, so, not for the first time, the problem needs to be sorted out there before a merge can be done here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
And, as said many time before - there actually is no problem, in fact it should be that way. The administrative unit (municipality) is a different concept than the populated place. A municipality can get dissolved by a simple administrative act, while the populated place stays. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

merge Nintendo DSi XL (Q3771823) and Nintendo DSi (Q637178)

Since DSi XL is a sub-model of DSi, it needs to be merged. This is because each language version document does not separate DSI XL and DSi into documents and merges them into the contents of the document. Some language versions use DSi XL separately, but the most focused document is to merge DSi XL into DSi.

A merge is not possible as cawiki (and possibly others) have separate pages for each model. Even if it was possible, I would advise against merging if there is some difference in the hardware or software between the two models. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

merge Nintendo 3DS XL (Q1371123) and Nintendo 3DS (Q203597)

This is the same data merger request as the one above. Basically, paragraphs with XL should be merged with names excluding XL.

Since 3DS XL is a sub-model of 3DS, it needs to be merged. This is because each language version document does not separate 3DS XL and 3DS into documents and merges them into the contents of the document. Some language versions use 3DS XL separately, but the most focused document is to merge 3DS XL into 3DS.

it is perfectly fine to have an item for a sub-model of something. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct; they're clearly different things. The granularity of language WP articles does not always mesh with WD; and what might be treated as discrete concepts are joined together in single articles: the Bonnie & Clyde problem. It's well known - see, for instance, Wikidata:WikiProject Cross Items Interwikis. It's a suboptimal situation, but it is not solved by merging distinct items for the convenience of a subset of language wikipedias. The linked page discusses the issue and provides suggestions for handling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

is this possible?

At the English Wikipedia there are 87,000+ individual taxonomy templates. These templates form one-way linked lists working up from an initial taxon. en:Module:Autotaxobox is the tool that stiches them together. This works well enough for en.wiki but to be useable on other-language wikis, requires the import of all 87,000+ data templates and the base templates and modules that render the taxoboxen. And, of course, there is the accompanying maintenance headache of keeping the data at the various individual wikis synchronized.

One possible solution to this problem is to convert all of the 87,000+ template into a series of lua data modules. I have written some awb scripts and supporting lua functions to demonstrate that the 87,000+ templates can be converted to 100 or so lua data modules. That still leaves the maintenance headache because how does the everyday editor create a new taxon in the data? It is likely that the everyday editor will shy away from editing lua code.

There have been suggestions that wikidata is a possible solution. But, the existing wikidata taxonomy structure is not compatible with the autotaxobox structure at en.wiki. For the purposes of demonstration, I have hacked a bit of lua code that, beginning at the genus Felis, crawls the taxonomy tree through the lua data tables (left column) and through wikidata (center column). The output from Module:Autotaxobox is on the right as a reference. See en:Module talk:Sandbox/trappist the monk/taxonomy. The lua data version is more or less correct, though there are still bugs in my code, but the wikidata version is wildly different.

My question: Is it possible to clone the data from the 87,000+ taxonomy templates into wikidata where they would exist in some sort of isolation from the current taxonomy data? As I see it there is no reason for the Autotaxobox data to impinge on the existing taxonomy data nor any desire for the two to share. Certainly, they could share properties (P225 taxon name, P105 taxon rank, P171 parent taxon). As separate data items the taxon are easier for editors to create and edit so there is a reduced chance that inexperienced editors will break something wholly unrelated. As a separate collection of data, other-language wikipedias would only need the base templates and modules that render the taxoboxen.

Is this possible?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

this sounds possible though I do wonder what new properties you are imagining. Wikidata already has a lot of taxonomic information. What information is missing? Why would you want the information to live in isolation from the current data? BrokenSegue (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
At en.wiki there is an essay that describes why the current taxonomy structure in Wikidata is not appropriate for the task of creating taxoboxen.
Each of the 87,000+ taxon names (one per taxonomy template at en.wiki) gets a unique qid. For example there will be a new Felis qid with a description that includes the word 'Autotaxobox'. Each of these autotaxobox qids will have a property for each parameter supported by the en.wiki taxonomy templates. These parameters and how their functionality might be implemented as properties are:
|parent= – holds the qid for the current taxon name's parent – much as parent taxon (P171) does at Felis (Q228283) – perhaps P171 can be used for the autotaxobox taxonomies
|rank= – holds the taxon name's taxonomic rank – a text string is sufficient though taxon rank (P105) might be used to hold the qid for the taxon name's rank. There are about 130 taxonomy ranks used by the en.wiki taxonomy templates. I don't know how many of those ranks are listed in wikidata. Is there an easy way to get a list of all of the P105 taxon ranks?
|link= – an internationalized link label (should be named as a label) that falls back to English. The link label itself is plain text (I don't know how i18n would work for this – a language code qualifier?). The link label is used with the site link retrieved from the taxon name's qid so:
[[:<lang>:<site link>|<link label>]]
[[:vi:Abaciscus (bướm đêm)|Abaciscus]] → Abaciscus
|extinct= – boolean true when a taxon name is extinct; boolean false or no value when not extinct
|always_display= – boolean true to force the display of a taxon name in a taxonomy list; normally boolean false or no value
|refs= – one or more plain-text references that support the choice of values above; may contain template markup ({{cite book |...}})
|same_as= – holds the qid of a taxon name that this taxon name will take data from; this allows the taxonomy list to skip over sections of the taxonomy tree that aren't appropriate or necessary for the current taxonomy list
I thought that I answered your "Why would you want the information to live in isolation" question in my initial post. Tell me what was unclear in that post and I'll try to do better.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
You wrote "as separate data items the taxon are easier for editors to create and edit so there is a reduced chance that inexperienced editors will break something wholly unrelated". I don't get either concern honestly. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
en:Template:Taxonomy/Felis is one of the 87,000+ taxonomy templates. The internals of that template look like this: 
{{Don't edit this line {{{machine code|}}}
|rank=genus
|link=Felis
|parent=Felinae
}}
Were we to transfer that template to wikidata, we would create an autotaxobox qid for it and give it 'rank', 'link', and 'parent' properties. The other properties 'extinct', 'always_display', 'refs', and 'same_as' should probably be present but set to no value. This collection of properties assigned to the new Felis autotaxobox qid is the separate data item to which I referred. Editors working on autotaxobox taxa have no need to edit taxonomy data at wikidata that is not related to autotaxoboxen. Especially for non-expert editors, I believe that simple is best. The autotaxobox qids do not need: image (P18), start time (P580), taxon range map image (P181), montage image (P2716), described by source (P1343), Commons category (P373), topic's main category (P910), earliest date (P1319), or any of the 30-ish identifiers available at Felis (Q228283). All of that is just stuff that serves no purpose for the 87,000+ autotaxobox qids that would make up the complete data set. The data set should be simple to maintain.
Is this a better explanation?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK, all taxodata was copied from enwiki long time ago in an early stage of Wikidata. Also the thing you are probably missing is Template:Automatic taxobox (Q6705326) - this template exists in 75 editions of Wikipedia (including enwiki), but does not exist in dewiki/frwiki/eswiki. Ruwiki have already replaced ~80% of classic taxoboxes with wikidata-based taxoboxes. The problems there were mostly related to Lua memory, not to lack of data. Lockal (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "Also the thing you are probably missing is Template:Automatic taxobox (Q6705326)". I don't think that I'm missing that template. Template:Automatic taxobox is implemented by Module:Automated taxobox (Q61472014) which takes the value assigned to the template's |taxon= parameter as the starting point when it creates the taxonomy list. The taxonomy list is created using the data from a handful of the 87,000+ taxonomy templates.
Yes, lua memory is an issue that is solved at en.wiki by discarding a data module after it has been used. The issue for a lua implementation is making the data 'editable' by non-technical editors who know nothing about lua syntax. And you still have the interwiki importation and synchronization issues to deal with.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, you are correct, and my information is wrong. I thought ruwiki was able to get rid of NN000 templates in implementation, but I lost the track and no one managed to do it. Lockal (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.; pinging the experts --Azertus (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm the user that started this conversation some weeks ago. I'm an admin at SqWiki and when I wanted to update our current taxonomy system to be EnWiki standard I found out that I needed to import ~90k templates to do that while keeping up with an unusual way of template usage which started this whole conversation. Ever since, I've been following the discussions about the subject and I have a somewhat naive question: One of the most common arguments that gets thrown around is that editors need to be able to easily edit each taxon often. Is the whole taxonomic system really supposed to be THAT dynamic? I fully support technical simplifications but I really don't totally grasp the emphasize of the dynamic part. I do understand that, like many other things, no taxon is ever set in stone and they're ever evolving + we continuously get new information that changes our Tree of Life but I'm not sure if this case is that different from any other scientific systems that use tree like structures. I haven't seen the dynamic aspect being put as a main criteria in their technical designs. I mean, sure, if the system could also satisfy that point then, why not, but having that as a main aim in technical design looks a bit strange in my eyes, like having a bakery project with one of its main aims of designing an infrastructure to allow selling bread in 0.3 seconds for each customer. But maybe I'm wrong and that dynamic aspect should be an important part of the design. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
If you look at en:Module talk:Sandbox/trappist the monk/taxonomy and compare the left-most taxonomy list with the reference list on the right, you will see that the two lists are not the same. The data for the leftmost list was compiled from the 87,000+ taxonomy templates on 15 October. And then over the next two days an editor changed three of those templates and created another:
en:Template:Taxonomy/Mammalia/skip changed parent 16 October
en:Template:Taxonomy/Theriimorpha created 16 October
en:Template:Taxonomy/Theriiformes changed parent 16 October
en:Template:Taxonomy/Trechnotheria changed parent 17 October 2021
This, of course, highlights a drawback of the lua data module system... Editors will edit. Making it easy for them to do so in a way that they don't break unrelated stuff is a good thing.
If you can sell bread faster than your competitor and thereby sell more bread than your competitor, why wouldn't you do that? Of course what that may require is that you now sell something that only vaguely resembles bread à la 'Wonderbread'.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I examined your examples above and I'm still a bit in a dilemma whether the need for dynamic edits comes as a lack of information currently on the subject from Wikipedia or from advances/changes in new studies.
For example, the date in this ref in this edit would suggest that that dynamic needs comes from the lack of information currently.
On this other hand, the summary on this edit makes you think that need for dynamic edits is coming from new advances in scientific discourse.
(Of course the data set of evaluation was only 4 from out of ~90k cases.)
But why does this matter, all may say, given that in both cases you still need to dynamically edit? Well, that's because if the first case is true in most of the cases than the problem can be simplified into "we all wait a bit more until the information is there to support the core of the auto-taxonomic system". And then we start with the Lua method anyway given that it will support 80% of the cases. 20% of the cases can be added by experienced Lua editors (if we are to agree that Lua modules are beyond the tech threshold of normal editors) and that percentage is expected to get lower as more time passes. If the second case is true for most of the cases and the bio-taxonomy is inherently dynamic in nature or we live in an era of grand genetics discoveries, then the problem of dynamic edits should really be considered a priority in devising whatever system shall be used for it because the aforementioned supposed percentage of "unsupported cases" won't get lower as time passes, at least relatively speaking. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Alas, referencing in the 87,000+ taxonomy templates is rather lacking. en:Module:Sandbox/trappist the monk/taxonomy T4 (one of the 34 lua data modules needed to create the left-hand list) has the data from 1000 taxonomy templates. Of those 1000 templates, 368 have references. References in taxonomy templates are not required (see en:Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#refs). That a reference was added is a good thing.
In the :en:WT:TOL discussions a recurring topic is editability so it isn't just me who is saying that. Right now, the autotaxobox system data is eminently editable. Moving that data here keeps the data editable and also makes the whole data set available to all wikipedias for the remarkably low cost of importing a few modules and templates to do the data fetching and rendering.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware that that topic is a recurring one. That's why I said that I'm seeing the "editability" argument thrown around a lot. Anyway if the solution is thought to be found, of course there are no objections to it. It's just that it was starting to seem a bit strange to me that we were arguing that taxonomy had this inherited attribute of being dynamic by itself which was starting to "veto" some of the ideas that were being proposed even more than the Lua memory usage issue, which seemed like a technical hardblock. I have some past experiences on somehow similar occasions (but still much diverse) where "the opposition" was mostly coming by the overall inconvenience new things/workflows bring in general. But as I said, if we can have an automatic system that also provides dynamic editability it would be even better. And given that you argue that we already have a solution (at least a blueprint of it) that satisfies all factors, then of course further arguing on already solved problems is detrimental. - Klein Muçi (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
en.wiki's set of taxonomy templates is far from being complete. Currently it is important that it be easy to create new taxonomy templates. Estimates of accepted genera range from 175,000 to 300,000+, and while most of the 87,000 existing templates are for genera some are for higher taxonomic ranks. en.wiki is very unlikely to have a taxonomy template for a taxon which doesn't yet have an article there. Around 1/3 of en.wiki's taxon article are not using the automatic taxobox system (I compile statistics on use of automatic taxoboxes in en.wiki: this is the most recent update) There probably aren't very many taxon articles on sq.wiki that don't have a corresponding taxonomy templatte on en.wiki, but that isn't true for all languages (ceb, war and sv wikis have more taxon articles than en does). Plantdrew (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that I've gotten an answer to my is-this-possible question. Have I? Am I to interpret the lack of a definitive answer, as an answer in the negative? Did I ask this question in the correct place? If not, where is the better place for me to ask it?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the answer is it's technically possible, but not sensible (and therefore not possible to get consusus to do it). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Why is it "not sensible"?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
For all the reasons given and implied above. You said you don't think that you've gotten an answer. I'm pointing out that you have. (But see also DRY.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You must be reading something in the above posts that I'm not reading. That is why I asked why you think the idea is "not sensible". Excepting you and me, there have been nine posts here from five separate editors. This is how I understand what those editors wrote:
  • BrokenSegue – (03:30, 19 October 2021) asked questions; I attempted to provide answers
  • BrokenSegue – (14:36, 19 October 2021) asked for clarification of certain points made in my initial post which I attempted to answer; Editor BrokenSegue has not replied to my "Is this a better explanation?" question
  • Lockal – (07:37, 19 October 2021) posted about the initial taxonomy data import, about Template:Automatic taxobox (Q6705326), about various other-language wikis; I replied that this discussion is not about Template:Automatic taxobox (Q6705326) and attempted further clarification
  • Lockal – (14:56, 19 October 2021) agreed that this discussion is not about Template:Automatic taxobox (Q6705326); asked no further questions, offered no opinions
  • Azertus – (14:29, 19 October 2021) pinged Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy/Participants; asked no questions, offered no opinions
  • Klein Muçi – (12:15, 20 October 2021) initiated discussion of this topic at en.wiki; apparently supports technical simplification; wonders about editability and the "dynamic" nature of the automatic taxobox system; I attempted an answer
  • Klein Muçi – (20 October 2021) more about editability and the "dynamic" nature of the automatic taxobox system; I attempted another answer
  • Klein Muçi – (20 October 2021) more about editability and the "dynamic" nature of the automatic taxobox system; appears to suggest that a solution exists but does not exactly name that solution
  • Plantdrew – (23:14, 20 October 2021) replies to Editor Klein Muçi; states that the ability to easily create new data for the automatic taxobox system is important; suggests that the data set at en.wiki is far from complete; asked no questions; offered no opinions
In my reading of these editors' responses, I do not see any "reasons given and implied" that equate to "technically possible, but not sensible". Which of the responding editors supports your "not sensible" statement?
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
generally I think it's "technically possible, but not sensible". Duplicating a bunch of taxon items seems bad. It would be better to find a way to fix our current system. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Not a "duplication" because the automatic taxobox system needs only the seven or so properties I described above whereas the existing taxon can (and does) support many more properties that are of absolutely no value to the automatic taxobox system.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I would also be more interested in fixing up the existing items, than creating duplicates. What exactly is the problem with the existing structure, and how easy would it be resolve? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Compare the middle columns of the two tables at en:Module_talk:Sandbox/trappist_the_monk/taxonomy to the right most columns of the same tables. I don't know if it is possible or easy to combine the needs of the automatic taxobox system into the existing general-purpose taxonomy data already present at Wikidata. Editor Peter coxhead has written an essay that describes why the current Wikidata taxonomy structure is not appropriate for the automatic taxobox system. If Editor Peter coxhead is correct (I have no reason for doubt) then an attempt to shoehorn the one data structure into the other without causing undue confusion later on will be extremely difficult.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Question What makes them notable? --Succu (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Items 1 and 3 at WD:N. For the most part, each automatic taxobox system template has a link to an existing en.wiki article about that taxon. The exceptions are 'same_as' templates which are structural elements used to jump around sections of a taxonomic hierarchy not appropriate for the lower ranks. For example, en:Template:Taxonomy/Mammalia/skip in the Felis list at right in en:Module_talk:Sandbox/trappist_the_monk/taxonomy skips everything between clade Mammalia and clade Amniota (without the ~/skip it would be Mammalia → Mammaliaformes/skip (a 'same_as') which skips Mammaliaformes where the rest of the list of skipped taxa below clade Amniota can be seen.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
One could punt an argument based on structural need, to the extent that WD acts as a DB for WPs. As to Trappist the monk's main question, it seems hard to imagine adding a parallel set of taxon items without polluting the taxon well in a fairly comprehensive way. All other users would have to route around the parallel set, once they come across it. I can just about conceive of a set of items that smuggle the data required by the templates as qualifiers rather than main statements - afaics this would have much less impact on 3rd party reports written in ignorance of the fact that WD would now have two independent sets of taxons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, indeed a structural need: curated data necessary to support the automatic taxobox system. Perhaps these items get names that clearly distinguish them (obscure them) from the existing set of taxonomic items: 'automatic taxobox genus', 'automatic taxobox Felis' or some such so that we don't use common taxonomic rank and names. It seems undesirable to me to make any attempt to share data properties between dissimilar sets of taxa data. Blurring the boundaries between the dissimilar data sets by "[smuggling] the data required by the templates as qualifiers" seems to me to invite "[pollution of] the taxon well" so the automatic taxobox system data must not use properites already in use by the existing set(s) of taxonomic data.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Wikidata already has items for taxonomy templates, e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Felis (Q13218344). Why not just add the necessary properties to the template items? Admittedly, I don't see how this would make it any easier for Wikipedia language editions that haven't already imported taxonomy templates to do so (which is the underlying issue that this is an attempt to resolve). Plantdrew (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Alas, because, if it is possible and acceptable to store the necessary data at wikidata, the source templates at en.wiki and elsewhere become superfluous and will be deleted. Template:Taxonomy/Felis (Q13218344) and other template qids will then point to nothing at en.wiki; more likely, the link to the non-existant en.wiki template will be removed. For the automatic taxobox system, we do not want the links listed in the Wikipedia panel (upper right at Q13218344) to point to templates, we want those links to point to the local language articles about the taxon; for example, en:Felis at en.wiki.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

A little idea came to me

Hello everyone,
I suggest you merge Q100000000 (non-existent) with Wikipedia 20 (Q100235488) (Merge with the oldest Item). CC @Kaganer, 99of9:. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

if it is techinically feasible, that would be a nice idea ! this way, a very symbolic QID would bear a very symbolic item, celebrating a long time success ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Good idea! If it's technically possible, I encourage its realization: it's not so disturbing and it's nice to have an additional symbolic number (as has been done on some items at the very beginning). — Baidax 💬 06:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
<head desk> --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
<head desk> ??, Tagishsimon —Eihel (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It apparently is not technically possible. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The closest possible is Q99999998, it used to be an existing entry. However, it's not same nice-looking as Q100000000. --Wolverène (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ever existing item ids must not be re-used. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
No way then. :) --Wolverène (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Chat channels, closed apps, and bridging

What are the official chat channels for Wikidata? The IRC and Discords seem to be very quiet. There's allegedly a Telegram too, but I don't want to use my "real-life" account to join that and it needs a phone number. Which ones are active, and can they please be bridged to the "open" channels that don't require a suite of proprietary apps to connect to? (Also, if the "official" channels are proprietary apps, are the privacy policies of the apps/platforms in question compatible with those of the WMF?) Inductiveload (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not "offical", and also quite quiet, but there is a Wikidata channel on the Wikimedia hosted Mattermost instance. Ainali (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Another one? This fragmented and siloed chat ecosystem is IMO completely insane and counter to every principle the WMF is supposed to stand for. Inductiveload (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, that appears to be impossible to log into since there is no sign-up link. Inductiveload (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
As I said, it's not official, so no need to bring WMF into this. It's setup by a volunteer on the existing tools infrastructure. (Also, a link to the principles you are referring to would be helpful.) Ainali (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
The fact that most of the discussion is now happening in walled garden apps and a volunteer has to be responsible for the remaining infrastructure says it all about how completely the WMF has failed to provide a suitable platform. Various relevant principles might be:
...provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The Foundation will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
—https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/mission/
And also the fact that the entire shebang is built around an explicitly open-source platform in Mediawiki itself? Being railroaded into using even more closed, commercial apps that require my phone number to even access just to access the primary discussion forum (if discussion on Libera's #wikidata - a screenful in a week - is the sum of Wikidata off-wiki discussion, then I take it back) does not sit well with me. Inductiveload (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, Mattermost (Q55478510) is licensed MIT License, GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.0 so I don't know why you call it closed and commercial, it's clearly misinformed. And for the principle you quoted, it does not at all imply there should be a single place for chat. On the contrary, "infrastructure" and "framework" sort of implies there could be entire ecosystems within them. (And if you talk about Telegram, I don't think you should reply to me since I did nothing of the sort to promote it. By the way, I can strongly recommend enabling the discussion tools.) Ainali (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
You yourself said it's not used much, and it's not actually even possible to sign up for it anyway (phab:F34714040), so it isn't very useful to me. From what I understand, the primary non-wiki communication channel for Wikidata is Telegram. That is very much a closed platform.
And I do have Discussion Tools on, but (of course) they do not work on mobile. Which is probably party why no-one uses Talk pages for more real-time communication, because editing any wiki page on Mobile is a UX disaster area. Inductiveload (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I remember reading on some policy page that Wikimedia does not officialy support chats because communication should be preferably centralized on the talk pages of the movement's projects. Talk pages are directly accessible by anyone (they are on the project websites!) and require no joining of a chat service. By supporting only one system that is run by Wikimedia itself, they are formulating a single place to discuss matters and also do not have to worry about managing platforms that are not controlled by them and possible bridges between them. By having a single place, it improves the stability and intercommunication of the movement as a whole.
Personally, I agree with this approach and reasoning completely, even though I significantly use Telegram and Discord to communicate with Wikidata and Wikipedia community members. Still, important matters are always discussed on Talk pages and not on the chats.
Your question also seems to be rooted in the preference of using chats over Talk pages. I'd recommend continuing to support Talk page reform and development so that we can get to a stage where Talk pages are as convenient as chats! Lectrician1 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I do agree but the reason I want to see where the chats are taking place is that, especially here at WD, talk pages are very quiet and questions frequently go unanswered. Inductiveload (talk) 05:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

How do I connect a building with a former occupant

What is the standard way to connect Seminariet, Umeå (Q28379794) and Umeå teacher's school (Q109290750)? We have a building, now repurposed, and the school once housed there. They should not be merged. The building will have multiple occupants over its history. --RAN (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

afaik, occupant (P466) with start & end dates on the building item. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
And for an institutional occupant, I think you can get away with location (P276) on the occupant pointing to the building; and for a person, residence (P551). --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
For institutions, I'd rather incline towards uses (P2283) or indeed headquarters location (P159) Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Tagishsimon: I agree with the user Vojtěch Dostál. The propertie location (P276) should actually only be used for geographical objects or structures, but not for organizations. But a school is an organization and that's why I would also recommend using uses (P2283). --Gymnicus (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
That's a point of view, I suppose, but if we look at the way the properties are being used ... take schools, for example: 1871 examples of P276 being used to point to a building - https://w.wiki/4JF6 and only 85 uses of P2283 to point to a building - https://w.wiki/4JFA ... I don't see the logic in the suggestion that an organisation cannot be located somewhere, when irl organisations are, generally, located somewhere. Why tilt at windmills? Headquarters location is mostly useful for organisations which have a headquarters, which is to say a have a head-office facility at a location distinct from other operational locations. Most organisations do not have headquarters, but instead a single location which would not in common parlance be termed a headquarters. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: “Most organisations do not have headquarters” – At least for Germany I can say no to this statement. In Germany every organization has a head office or has to provide one. There are many registers in Germany, for example for associations and companies. In these registers the registered office is always given. --Gymnicus (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Creator link

A while back I created a creator link for Robert Strickland Thomas (Q18600471).

I created the standard formatting for it as {Creator:Robert Strickland Thomas}, this is now been changed to {Creator|wikidata=Q18600471}

How did this happen? Why? This is supposed to be the project that anyone can edit in , and this kind of thing (change) is taking it away from that.

Can we change it back please.

I hope this is not going to be the new norm, because if it is we need to stop it now. Broichmore (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't really understand the perceived problem, but you seem to be talking about commons:Creator:Robert Strickland Thomas, correct? Q18600471 is indeed the qid for this person so I suspect there is no error. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
See commons:Template:Creator#Syntax #1: for people with pages on Wikidata — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. It's interesting because earlier this AM I put {Creator:Robert Strickland Thomas} into an upload template and it wasn't recognizeed. It only recognized {Creator|wikidata=Q18600471}. Fairly sure the creator link didnt show on the commons cat page. Now the upload template does recognize the former. Something changed, I dont know what, and am now confused. Broichmore (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The only page I can see which might be relevant is commons:File:H.M.S. Princess Royal under tow by the paddle frigate Leopard off Corfu CSK 1999.jpg. But this is on Commons not really an issue with Wikidata :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: The Wikidata Q ID should be inserted on the Creator page, such as c:Creator:Robert Strickland Thomas. You then transclude the Creator page using {{Creator:Robert Strickland Thomas}}. If the transclusion had failed on Commons that sounds like either a temporary glitch or an input error; it may just have been a server delay in retrieving the transcluded data. I'll be happy to look at any pages where the issue is still occurring. If your direct use of the Q ID was just on the one page, this has now been fixed.[13] From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

merge Incapsula (Q6014136) and Imperva (Q6007092)

Since encapsula was originally created by the imperva company, it is currently based on imperva and I don't know if it should be merged into imperva, but I think it should be merged as of now, 10 years later. Imperva's subordinates are owned by imperva, so we request to merge the encapsula into imperva.

Finding a LoC subject authority

Ipigott and I are working on en:Draft:Photography in Canada and I created photography in Canada (Q109301994) as a preliminary. I'm trying to think of things to add to the item, which isn't too useful at the moment. I thought there might be a instance of Library of Congress authority ID (P244) for this topic. The LoC catalogue lists "Photography--Canada" and several subsidiary topics as a subject heading, but I wasn't able to find an alphanumeric value to add as an instance of P244. Any ideas? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Saving information from deleted non-defining categories

At English Wikipedia, there's recently been a trend toward deleting categories judged to be non-defining. This makes sense as a way to run a category system, but a lot of these categories contain information that would be relevant for Wikidata. Should we consider setting up a task force of some sort to monitor/collaborate with w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (and equivalent pages in other languages) to try to preserve this information by ensuring it's imported to here before categories are deleted? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Institution as Reference for a statement?

My institution (Harry Ransom Center) has biographical information for various artists that was generally received from the artists' themselves. But since we do not publish these resources online, I can't use a URL for a Reference to support statements such as date of birth, date of death, educated at, etc. Is there a workaround for this problem? MAHarper (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

is the information public at all? if not it's not really a useful reference. if it's published but just not online then you can use it as a reference using e.g. stated in (P248) with an item for the library or database. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

New strategies for Wikidata and the Wikibase Ecosystem published and waiting for your feedback

Hi everyone,

In 2019 we published strategy papers for Wikidata and the Wikibase Ecosystem. They have been very helpful for us to clarify where we see Wikidata and the Wikibase Ecosystem going and have conversations about it with editors, other chapters and user groups, outside organisations and within our team.

Two years have passed since then and a lot has happened. Over the past months we have therefore sat down again and taken the time to really consider where we are and where we want to go based on everything we have learned from conversations we have had with many of you, research we have done and how we and the world have changed since the first strategy papers were published. Today we are publishing the result of all of that work and are inviting your feedback.

You can find the new strategies at metawiki:LinkedOpenData/Strategy2021 and we would love to hear your feedback and thoughts on the talk page at metawiki:Talk:LinkedOpenData/Strategy2021.

Cheers Sam, Lea, Manuel, Lydia for the development team Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Paul Aurélien

 
The offending saint

Bonsoir, je suis désolé mais je n'arrive pas à corriger les infos sur Paul Aurélien, notamment changer l'image qui ne correspond pas au statuaire breton de l'époque des saints, mais à une église orthodoxe bretonne récente ayant des membres actifs (les principaux saints bretons ont une image de ce type de création récente) et la date de naissances qui n'est pas connue, l'année non plus il l'avis des historiens étant que c'est vers la fin des années 400 et pour le décès c'est l'année qui est n'est pas connue avec une estimation vers la fin des années 500. Les dates ou les années indiquées sont dues à des religieux du 19ème et ne sont pas reprisent par les études les plus récentes réalisées par des historiens. J'évite d'aller sur wikidata mais ses partisans ayant obtenus des infobox en lien cela rend les modifs difficiles surtout lorsque les sources références du contenu de l'article n'est pas en concordance avec ce que contient wikidata. Merci d'avance pour votre aide ordialement --Quoique (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC).

@Quoique: The image - file:Saint-Pol-de-Léon - Chapelle Notre-Dame du Kreisker - Sept saints fondateurs bretons - St Pol.jpeg - is hard-coded into the infobox template on French wiki's w:fr:Paul Aurélien. It is not on wikidata & has nothing to do with wikidata. None of the information in the infobox comes from wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wanted: tool to remove all references from an item

Discussion in the (ongoing) "Request a tool" session at WikidataCon suggests that a script to remove all references from an item would be helpful. Use cases include a duplicated item, where it is desired that the structure and values are kept, but citing a new source; and for when one has found an item with a poor or invalid source, and the user ah a better source something better to cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

P553 vs dedicated properties for online accounts/usernames

I've proposed two properties

Those properties can be handled by using P553 (website account on). Jura1 opposed to the property "Stack Exchange user ID" because of that reason.

Now, I have some questions regarding property creation and Wikidata properties to identify online accounts (Q105388954):

  1. Why do some online accounts have a dedicated property while others are stored using P553? For example, some of such dedicated properties are Hacker News username (P7171), Reddit username (P4265), Quora username (P4411) and GitLab username (P8827). Note that those properties could also be handled by using P553.
  2. What is required for an online account to have its own property (i.e. so that it is not stored using P553)?

If you are not familiar with P553, Q15136093 uses this property seven times.

Rdrg109 (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It's arbitrary, not rule-based. You can visit the property proposals for some of those you've listed, to try to elicit a greater understanding; links to the proposal discussions are on the talk page. Hacker News - P7171 - now has ~80 uses after a couple of years. It's not clear that it has anything going for it that Stack lacks. Jura seems to be opposing mainly based on lack of evidence of need - 7 instances of Hacker News IDs in P553. You might want to counter that argument by making a reasoned estimate of the number of IDs which the proposed property is likely to store. There are merits on both sides of the argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Rdrg109: I think it really depends on how much the property will be used (both in terms of the expected number of values here, which should be >100 or more, and expected use on other Wikimedia projects), and the availability of a formatter URL, which makes it easier to access the links. Also, courtesy ping to @Jura1: to let them know about this discussion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC) (and again, since I accidentally misformatted my signature - @Jura1:.)

Commons category (P373) again (but with news!)

Hi all. The discussion about what to do with Commons category (P373) still continues. I've just started Part 3 at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Part_3 with some good news - phab:T232927 has been fixed, the links to Commons in Wikimedia project sidebars now use the sitelinks! It would be really good if this discussion can be closed soon, one way or another, so that we can make progress either with maintaining Commons category (P373)} or removing it - two years really is too long for such a discussion to last! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

OpenSearch Description

Is there an OpenSearch Description file like this one installed on Wikidata search META tags, so it can be used as a search engine, please? 71.204.166.188 22:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There is an OpenSearch API https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=opensearch not sure about a description file though? ·addshore· talk to me! 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Coolest Tool Award 2021: Call for nominations

 

The third edition of the m:Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations!

Tools play an essential role for the Wikimedia projects, and so do the many volunteer developers who experiment with new ideas and develop and maintain local and global solutions to support the Wikimedia communities. The Coolest Tool Award aims to recognize and celebrate the coolest tools in a variety of categories.

The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in December. Deadline to submit nominations is October 27. More information: m:Coolest Tool Award. Thanks for your recommendations! -- 2021 Coolest Tool Academy team

number of matches played/races/starts (P1350)

Why not number of competitions played? Eurohunter (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A competition - such as the FIFA World Cup - involves multiple matches, and so number of competitions played != number of matches played. Also, whilst we're here: you must surely know that if you use a template for a talk page section header, users cannot navigate from watch and hisory lists to the section. It's very much a suboptimal thing to do. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: „number of competitions played != number of matches played“ – In this case, what is meant by competition and what is meant by matches? --Gymnicus (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: See sports competition (Q13406554). As I noted by way of example, the w:en:FIFA World Cup is a competition held each four years, in which the successful team will play multiple matches. Competition is the whole event involving multiple football games. Matches are the individual games played in the competition. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I ask because I am a German-speaking user and in German the property has the name „Anzahl der gespielten Partien“ (English: „number of games/matches played“). Actually, the name of the property should then be „Anzahl der ausgetragenen Wettbewerbe/Wettkämpfe“ (English: „the number of competitions competitions held“). Perhaps a change from „played“ to „held“ would also make sense in English, because you can then use this property not only for sports games but also for sports fights, for example, and then the word „played“ doesn't fit, right? --Gymnicus (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) Please disregard this comment, I misunderstood something. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Now answered correctly again: I understand the difference, of course, and basically see it like you do. On the other hand, the property brought into play by Eurohunter would of course also make sense, which can be used, for example, at the Olympic Games, where a different approach is currently used. --Gymnicus (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gymnicus: @Tagishsimon: If number of matches played/races/starts (P1350) then it can't bu used for Formula One etc. Eurohunter (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I lose the plot. Why exactly can number of matches played/races/starts (P1350) not be used to count the number of grand prix race starts made by a driver? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I just noticed English label has races/starts too so why not just change it to one more general term? Eurohunter (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Q147276 (proper noun) and Q100997409 (proper and common nouns)

These two appear to be the same topic. At both English and Chinese Wikipedia, "proper noun" and "专有名词" are redirects, and the only one that distinguishes the topics is Romanian (where both are stubs). The status quo means that the article on the Wikipedia version that is the most widely used worldwide has a broken link to all other language versions except for tiny stubs on Chinese and Romanian Wikipedias. (Chinese Wikipedia is also widely used, but I guess few read that particular article, given its size.) Japanese and French Wikipedias have articles on "proper noun", while "common noun" redirects to a section of "noun" (Q1084). Would it not be better to connect the English and Chinese ones to the rest, and have a separate item for the Romanian entry until someone on Romanian Wikipedia merges the two stubs together? Hijiri88 (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Unix Epoch / Unix Time converter to UTC would help me input data more accurately

I've taken an interest of adding public key fingerprint (P3721) information to relevant Wikidata items(not much done yet, I'm still in the "research stage") and the tool I use to get information from PGP keys is to use GNU Privacy Guard (Q223204) on them, though when it comes to key creation date ( start time (P580) ) the tool gives me the time in Unix Time / Epoch Time instead of in UTC time. There are no tools I am aware of and which are also free and open-source software (Q506883) that can convert epoch time / unix time to UTC time on my system and I'd want that to verify extra carefully if the online converters got the right conversion result, ie. epochconverter, the DuckDuckGo search engine, toolsful etc. comparing them with a good tool. Oduci (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oduci: You don't say what your "system" is, but if you can install python, for example, then the datetime library includes converters for this - utcfromtimestamp() and then strftime() to format it as you like. Most other open-source languages have similar libraries. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. My system is GNU/Linux (Q3251801). Also I found Kleopatra (Q28883021) although by default they don't display their time and date based on ISO 8601 (Q50101). I might search for ways to make it display the date and time in an international way some day. Oduci (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
You could use date -u -Iseconds -d @1234567890 as well. If you want to be very precise you could also provide a determination method which refers to a reproducible build of a type of date (Q902501) e.g. GNU coreutils date v9.0 including the command line arguments used and any environment variables that could impact function of 'date' (there probably aren't any of significance though but still worth checking). --Dhx1 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
For a browser console solution, try const stamp = t => (new Date(t * 1000).toISOString()); stamp(1234567890). --Artoria2e5 (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Loops in the subclass of (P279) directed graph

Hi, I'm new here!

I'm just beginning to explore wikidata, and one of the things I looked at was the subclass-of property subclass of (P279). My understanding is this is supposed to model classes similar, but not identical, to what a mathematician would understand.

For mathematical classes, it is true that if A is a subclass of B and B is a subclass of A, A and B are in fact the same class. Is this true for wikidata classes? My understanding is that if there is such a loop, at least one of the subclass-of claims should be marked as disputed.

As this query shows, there are a number of cases like this. Some of them are even weirder, in stating that A is a subclass of A, which is either trivial or untrue...

(Of course, a loop can have more than two links, but the SPARQL query for three-link loops times out without results, and my local analysis hasn't finished processing the entire dump yet).

I'd appreciate any advice on whether and how to fix this.

Streetmathematician (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There's always quite a lot wrong wherever you look on WD. So, mainly, be bold and start fixing it. I guess options include 1) one or other P279 is wrong and should be amended/deleted, 2) the two items are the same thing & should be merged 3) a sourcing circumstances (P1480) - disputed (Q18912752) qualifier pair might be added where there is a dispute. I've deleted all ?a P279 ?a as uninformative. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks!
Should there be a way of marking a group of properties as "acyclic"? For example, it seems contradictory (outside of fiction) to assert that there is a father (P22)/mother (P25)-cycle in the wikidata graph. (Currently, Gong Mingyu (Q45564025) is listed both as father and as a child of Gong Wenyue (Q45564088)).
I must confess I'm unsure what to do about many of the subclass loops, though. For example, some biochemists appear to use "glycan" as synonym of "polysaccharide", and this is the IUPAC definition. Some, however, use "glycan" to refer to sub-molecules of other molecules, but use "polysaccharide" to refer only to actual molecules... Streetmathematician (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

National Library of Ireland authority ID

We don't seem to have a property corresponding to the National Library of Ireland's authority database. I was going to create a property proposal but then I found I wasn't able to link to any use cases, as NLI's online catalogue doesn't seem to list technical info like authority identifiers. They seem to use VTLS (Q7907618) to generate authorities (see VIAF's entry for the N6I authority on Charles Dickens (Q5686)). Anyone know a way around this? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

HORACE STERN Chief Justice Supreme Court, PENNSYLVANIA, 1950s till death in 1979

Horace Stern was my great-uncle. Someone made a mistake (a gross one) in saying his wife was someone called Martha Trego. NO! His wife was Henrietta Pfaelzer, and I have further information about her. But I do not see how to replace the mistaken name. As far as I know, my inordinately stuffy, pompous great-uncle didn't have a mistress!

That's what you think. Anyway: this seems to be a complaint about an EN wikipedia article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Stern - which has absolutely nothing to do with wikidata. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I've removed her name. Horace's secret is safe again :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2021/10&oldid=1524037813"