Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WD:PC
Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Requests for deletions and merges can be made here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2015/03.

An item for every street?[edit]

I'm concerned that Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972 2 had little discussion or community consensus, for a 240,000-item import and a precedent for several magnitudes more than that. I have asked the bot operator to pause the job - which I appreciate is a good-faith effort - until that discussion has has taken place in a more prominent venue. I also think we need a longer period for the approval of bot tasks (or at least, for those of such size) than 48 hours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a pretty fundamental question. The natural thing to happen would be that in the long run everything that can be imported into Wikidata will be copied into it. Hard to draw a line somewhere, except to exclude low-quality data (the abhorrent example is Lsjbot which copied the worst database it could find, leaving us with thousands of fictitious taxa). - Brya (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we already have all streets in Paris. --- Jura 06:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with items for streets. We might need stricter notability rules for living people/companies, but for places and other sorts of things, I clearly tend towards inclusiveness. In this case, the streets are already referenced in an external database, with make the statements easily verifiable. That said, this bot run could be certainly improved (as discussed in User talk:Michiel1972#Street items . When bot create item with potentially disputable notability, it may also be a good idea to put some efforts in adding proper references. In the long run, references sounds like a promising tool for quality/notability analysis. --Zolo (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As for numbers, in my city (population ~1000 000) there are >1500 streets. So the ratio is roughly 1 street per 600 men, which can give us up to 10 millions streets. From europeo-centric POV. --Infovarius (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
There are maybe 1500 people where I live and much more than 4 streets, but the number is not the main problem for me, it's the volatile nature of postal code (P281). It's the internal concern of the largest postal company and they can change without notice. In larger cities located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) can also change every four years. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
As it's about Dutch streets, they have the same postal code for 30 years, as long as we have a postal code. I'm not that concerned that it's volatile, and if it is, we should forbid the property at all, instead of trying to not use it for Dutch streets ;-) The good thing I see, is that for every Dutch item in Wikidata we can start adding a location connected to a street, and Reasonator can show all Wikidata-items in a certain street once it gets properly populated. I will definitely add this for all items in my own home town, so I believe this import is gold. Edoderoo (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with one item for every street. I don't see any problem with any doubtful volatility either, if postal code (P281) or located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) should change, so change it on Wikidata as well. Hopfully we'll have sources to use and bots to update the data if needed. /ℇsquilo 10:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the limit ? Do we want to add all addresses too ? Do we want to create an item for every human ? For me streets are not common knowledge, just temporary information (who knows the streets of Roma under Julius Cesar) ? The limit in that case is the notability and then the existence of WP articles to justify an item creation. We have to reduce the items creation speed and to focus on increasing the data of existing items. Snipre (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
"We have to reduce the items creation speed and to focus on increasing the data of existing items." Well, if we were employed to improve the database, I would agree, but we are not. We are volunteers, and we have to work with what we like, otherwise we will leave. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
These streets help with increasing the data of existing items. We can replace located at street address (P969) with located on street (P669) on lots of items, so you can get a trusted overview of buildings at a street. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be an argument for creating an item for a street when we have an item for something on that street, not for creating an item for every street. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with bystander
In this case, Michiel1972 even makes a good effort to add meaningful statements to the items. --- Jura 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Innocent bystander If your argument is to use blackmail, I prefer you leave: WD is a collaborative project not a game for egoistic gamers.
User:Sjoerddebruin But for your example do you need all streets of all countries ? How many streets have monuments, buildings which have an item in WD ? The problem here is the goal of the addition of all streets.
User:Jura You can always add statements to an item: you can take a phone book and for each phone number add the first name and last name of the owner. Do you want to add all phone numbers in WD ? Snipre (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Snipre: My argument is about why you cannot force me or anybody, who isn't interested in the subject, to maintain items about fictional characters in the Universe of Tolkien/Marvel/Disney/StarWars. You could if you paid me, but you don't. Now, instead, driven by my egoism, I maintain the set of items about minor planets. I have an interest in the development of the Solar System. Because of that egoistic interest, I will make several items without related articles, no matter how many else are interested. Because of that, I hope, it will be easier to maintain lists of minor planets on WP. Several WP-projects have had bot-projects to create such articles, and obviously today have problems with the maintenance of them. I hope my work will help with that too, but it will most likely never be a large scale cooperation with a large set of users on WD.
I do not understand your arguments about every street in every country. Most countries do not have databases about such subjects, so it will never happen. In Sweden, that database is private property of a private company, and is copyrighted. It cannot be added here, until after it has been out of date. I know, because I have worked for a company who subscribed to that database. Every mailbox in Sweden is in that database, it includes the names of everybody who uses the mailbox, together with the coordinates and height over the sea level. But as I said, it is protected by copyright, and is out of date when it becomes free. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we need every street in every country. What's nice about these Dutch streets, is that they are linked already to the appropriate town, therefor we can already list every known street in a certain Dutch town. If we can do the same for France, India or Guatamala, with the same level of knowledge, then yes, I would like that. If it is just the names of all streets without the town? Then it's indeed just a sjid-load of info that doesn't make much sense (yet). I can imagine that *all Dutch streets* are not of big interest to people in the US, but to people that populate Dutch wikidata-items it does makes sense. It adds extra information to existing items, and therefor helps in our strategy to reveal knowledge. Step by step, bit by bit. Edoderoo (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Edoderoo What is knowledge ? What is information ? The sun is brightening today, that's information but can that information be in WD ? You say correctly that all Dutch streets can interest Dutch people and perhaps some others dozens of thousands persons, but can this be interested for WD which have a more larger focus: several billions of persons in 2015 and the others billions of persons in 2020 or 2030 ? Everything is information, not knowledge. The transformation of information to knowledge is more complex. Snipre (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear Snipre, 99.9% of all info in WikiData will never be read by me, but that is NO REASON AT ALL to forbit others to add it. Comparing streets from my beautiful country with the sun shining doesn't make sense. You bring it like Michiel is adding non-info, but I already explained some use-cases. People, please see some of those streets, before you come here to complain that you don't care. I don't care either, so live and let live. Edoderoo (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
If there is no problem to import hundreds of thousands of items, I don't see why it should be prohibit by some contributors. There is a lot of things to do with these data : % of streets with a female name, most popular name, celebrities born at my address, etc. Pyb (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think, we should add the information which streets are connected. --Molarus 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note from the technical side: Wikidata definitely won't scale to have an item for every street. Especially not if we apply similarly lax criteria to other data as well. But to be honest I think the community will stop scaling long before the technology will. So please please be careful. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have doubts about this import. Not about the import itself, I know Michiel will do a good job, but about the maintainability of the data. For each item we have, we need a (tiny) bit of community time. Having so many items about streets won't scale. Multichill (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Special:Search/street in paris does look like good stuff. If we can't maintain these 3200 items, maybe we should work on the technical side to make it possible. --- Jura 20:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that rue Ordener (Q3449347) (for example) having multiple shares border with (P47) is helpful... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
To see how it's used, have a look at fr:Rue Ordener. --- Jura 20:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That seems like overkill; but even if the data is needed, "shares border with" is not the appropriate property. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On further reading, I'm not sure why we need pages like fr:Cité_Nollez, either. Why are we trying to rebuild OSM? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not only overkill, it is improper use of shares border with (P47). crosses (P177) would be better, but generally terminus (P559) is sufficient information for streets. /ℇsquilo 10:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking at cité Hermel (Q2974666) on OpenStreetMap, and Google Streetview, it's hard to see why we would need it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill: if we can't maintain these items, then we need a special treatment like claim protection. There is actually no need to modify a claim if it is sourced from another database. Maintainability means periodic imports of the databases if there is some. Why would it be expensive ? In particular, why would a lot of items would need more attention than their initial import ? What would maintain mean actually ? We hear that a lot in this kind of discussion, maybe it would be worth thinking of what is actually maintenance in Wikidata and the cost. If the good maintenance unit is the database, the number of item is not really relevant. If it's the claim and every claims needs to be updated every day, it's impossible. (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
TomT0m: „There is actually no need to modify a claim if it is sourced from another database”. So all databases agree? I have strong doubts. --Succu (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
@Succu: The right process in Wikidata spirit, as concepted by its creators is not to modify the claim, but to add each a claim for each database, and if some database is known to be wrong mark its claim deprecated. TomT0m (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I am working with items now that have data imported from databases, and I find a lot of mistakes. I don't blame the uploader, a database could sometimes be difficult to understand. And many claims were added before the "rank"-function was added, which I have to add now. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Can you be more specific on the kind of mistakes you have to deal with, examples maybe ? From what you say here I can't decide whether the mistake was due to a bug in the robot or from the databases datas. TomT0m (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: In 1744 Harriet (Q122010), Palomar–Leiden survey (Q2048368) is marked as discoverer, I am not sure that is a good interpretation of the database. van Houten, van Houten-Groeneveld and Gehrels are the Palomar-Leiden Survey. So they are mentioned twice here.
All results in provisional designation (P490) are correct, but 6557 P-L is the primary provisional designation and should be marked as preferred. It is marked in bold in the database, and can also be found in lists like these.
The labels of minor planets have no universal standard. enwp normally write them as "1744 Harriet" while dewp write them as "(1744) Harriet" and others as "Harriet" with "asteroid" in description, and some languages "transcribes" the names (even if they have the same set of alphabet). Sometimes the bots have removed the parts of the sitelink which are within brackets. Most often here, they shouldn't, the brackets are often parts of the name. It doesn't matter which system you use, but you have to be consistent, at least within one language.
I have found named after (P138) linked to disambig-items and I have found other linking to list-items. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: I guess a bug in the import bot should be reported to the bot owner, it's pretty easy to undo what he did automatically with a few special cases checking in the code and add the code to do it correctly, especially when there could be a lot of similar errors. Anyway I don't think this cotradicts what I say, except a bug in the initial import, in which case we need to solve the bug, there is no reason to touch an imported claim after the import (except to mark it deprecated :) ) TomT0m (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I'm afraid the bot owner who made the import from JPL and MPC is not active anymore. I do not think we should let obvious mistakes stay even as "deprecated", like when disambig-items are used to describe relations. There is a minor planet with the name Chariklo, it is named after the wife of the mythological person Chiron. (You see him in films sometimes.) I am not aware of any item about her (yet), but that is not a reason to use the disambig-item with the title Chariklo instead, not even as a deprecated statement. Because nobody has ever, not even the stated source, supported that claim.
My ambition now is to create a chain of follows (P155)/followed by (P156) between all minor planets in the mpc-database. When that is done, I intend to ask other bot owners to fill all these items with claims. (It's easier when the chain is complete.) The reason a full P155/P156-chain is missing, is that not all articles exists in all languages. One language may have nr 4567 and another has 4568. The link between them is not obvious, and I guess it can be tricky for a bot to connect items in Asian languages with those in Latin or Cyrillic alphabets. But as manual user, I can do that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I share Lydia's doubts on us, the community, being already prepared to scale to the required size to have all streets, planets, books, songs, and insect species in Wikidata right now. It is clear that effective measures to deal with the data and to avoid spam, vandalism, and inaccuracies have to be in place and tested before we grow by a factor of 10 (which should be sufficient for all of these use cases). But on the other hand, if we don't actually try it out, we will not grow to be able to deal with that data size and requirements. I would suggest that we selectively allow for such datasets to be added, whenever the person who wants to do the upload also at least sketches how to aim for a sustainable data quality.
So, I would very much support to gather datasets like all streets, etc., and to integrate them. There is no rush, but our vision should be to actually have this data in some day, not too far in the future. Especially since we already have a well-established data set for Paris streets, New York streets, etc.
Regarding the technical scalability, Wikidata has right now a few bottlenecks (terms table, change propagation), but terms table is being tackled and change propagation has no direct relation to number of items, so I think that technically we can scale to 100M. But again, I am more worried that we become a data dump or a data desert than I am worried about us being not able to technically scale. --Denny (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Denny: I can import around 26 millions of items with minimum 3-4 statements and around 100 millions with 2 statements: molecules data. When can I start ? 10:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Read Wikidata:Comprehensive groups of items. --Succu (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Succu Thanks for the link. But if I read the page, I think that the street problem should never appear. Snipre (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a new page, see #Collections of entries. --Succu (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello anonymous! Sounds great. But one condition was to provide at least a sketch of how to maintain the data in the future, i.e. how to avoid lasting spam and vandalism and at the same time be open for useful contributions. Any plans for that? --Denny (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
IMHO Wikidata is not a land register, and even bots would have a hard time keeping all those items up-to-date. It is time to better define our notability boundaries and focus on quality instead. I don't know much about OpenStreetMap, could such data be hosted there? --Ricordisamoa 13:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it'd be good if, say, streets over one mile long would be considered notable. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The length of a street looks like a very strange criteria. The streets in the older parts of a city are often more interesting than the longer suburban. In svwp I guess almost all streets in the "old town" of Stockholm have articles, and they are all very short and narrow. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, good point, perhaps age would be a better criteria? --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. Many villages in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe have streets which are much older than most streets in New York. Dinsdagskind (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think bots should be used for that type of items... only streets that have a wp article (with real information in it) or streets where a notable monument exists (or where a notable person lived, for ex.) should be created…, for linking purpose. OSM is much more appropriate for geographic data like that... --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Process for approving bots[edit]

Discussion above concentrates - not unreasonably - on the specific import; but I also raised the question of the process by which bot approvals which constitute major changes to Wikidata are made. Anyone have any views on that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot is continuing to create pages, most recently Q19563267 (Q19563267) just now. Perhaps it could be blocked (with a block summary noting that no malicious intent is ascribed) until this matter is resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody voted for Michiel1972 request. That's bad! Ymblanter approved the job anyway. --Succu (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, for most requests nobody votes. I always suggest users to add the permission page to their watchlists and comment on requests, but nobody is doing this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As I've noted elsewhere, this particular request was open for comments for less than 48 hours before you approved it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
If the community decides requests should be open longer, I will gladly do it. Until there was any community decision, I will close requests when I think they are ready to be closed. This is fully within my authority.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't bite Ymblanter for doing his job. He's basically the only bureaucrat working on Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot and he's doing a good job. He leaves requests open for as long as needed, but he'll close requests if a request looks good and nobody objects. That's exactly what happened here. Multichill (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I've made no criticism of Ymblanter; I'm questioning the process (or lack of it), by which he and anyone else is operating. The request was open for under 48 hours; given that there is clearly an awareness that the page is under-watched, that's surely not adequate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I really have no intention of personalising this, but since you mention it, and speaking generally - what authority? By whom was it granted, to which role (admin, crat, or other), and where is it documented? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Please note Wikidata:Bots#Approval process. Considering there often is no input by the community, extended silence (i.e. no voiced disagreement) is also interpreted as consensus. If someone finds a request approved they would have disagreed with, they are of course free to post to WD:BN. Discussion can be reopened then and if demanded the approval also revoked, until the discussion has lead to consensus for further action. Regards, Vogone (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. I'm having trouble seeing "under 48 hours" as "extended silence". I think the policy needs to be clearer on this point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree the (that) quick approval was a bit unfortunate, normally we would wait a bit longer in case of possibly controversial requests. Vogone (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The most simple way is to modify the approval of data import by bots: a data import should be discussed in the framework of a project first and once a consensus between persons having an common interest and an global objective is reached, the request for the bot import can be organized with the link to the discussion. Data import should be the result of a project and not of the action of one person or two-three persons working without visibility on some global objectives.
Currently too many actions are the results of some persons or some groups from local WPs and without global/international view: people use WD to do what they are doing in their local WPs without coordination with others WPs or global projects. Snipre (talk) 13:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the bot[edit]

As of the last couple of minutes, the bot continues to create items for streets (see Q19576703 (Q19576703)). Please can someone stop it, until we conclude this discussion and determine the community's consensus? If the consensus is to allow it, the delay will cause far less harm (and work for others) than the deletions necessary if the consensus goes against it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, my bot has been blocked. I was at 95% of the database, now it is stopped and incomplete after a month of work. What's the next step in this community-consensus-process? In my opinion wikidata can contain all streets, all books, all albums, all monuments, etc. as long as there is sufficient content and a free source. Michiel1972 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Should I continue?[edit]

Please vote at Wikidata_talk:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/RobotMichiel1972_2, so we can see how the community thinks about this task. Michiel1972 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

No you should not, at least until the above discussion has concluded. It's not helpful that you've started a poll elsewhere, without even mentioning it in the discussion here there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Ehm, I see a mention here... It's only to get a clear consensus instead of making this discussion more harder to follow. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, typo; I meant there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Well, the bot has been unblocked and continues to create items about Dutch streets. The conversation above appears to have petered out. Is that consensus to continue in this fashion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As said, I'd like to see such data upload proposals to be partnered with a rough data maintenance sketch. And somehow more visibility for such data upload proposals, maybe have them be announced on the project chat as well, so that people are aware when a few hundred thousand items might be added? I am in general for such uploads, but they have to be done careful and with a sense of sustainable ownership. --Denny (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

So, the bot was unblocked a couple of days ago and the end result is:

  • around 240.000 dutch street items were created/imported by bot, which are not used
  • around 1.800 dutch streets that already have a dutch WP article and existing wikidata items were not enriched with the source according to spot checks (Q3094222 Q12012495 Q3032101)
  • there is no maintenance concept beyond "There was an additional question of maintainability, which is very limited because of the static information of postal codes"

What is next for the wikidatadump? Maybe all US streets (something between over 1 million roads and 26 Million Road Segments in Continental US)? Or, as said above, molecules data (around 26 millions of items with minimum 3-4 statements and around 100 millions with 2 statements)? Quite obviously this talk about "such uploads have to be done careful and with a sense of sustainable ownership" or "to provide at least a sketch of how to maintain the data in the future, i.e. how to avoid lasting spam and vandalism and at the same time be open for useful contributions" (quote Denny) this is just empty words: mass imports are supported regardless and hundreds of thousands of unused items are created by bot. No deletions, no bot block. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

They will be used, it just takes the right bot to do a job like that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"right bot job"? What do you mean, maybe a bot importing the dutch yellow pages so that the streets can be used as address property? Or a bot job to automatically generate dutch street "wikidata-articles" at, let's say: Navajo Wikipedia (Q17275421 Q17275427 Q17275459)? --Atlasowa (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Re: "I think we already have all streets in Paris" That was completely different, existing fr.Wikipedia article items were enriched. 6,583 items in frwiki Category:Voie_parisienne, 5477 wikidata Items with Paris city digital code (P630), 5475 of those with sitelink to frwiki. --Atlasowa (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

To do things like this flawless, hence there are a lot of streets with that name. Note that creating or feeding Wikipedia articles is not the main goal of Wikidata. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Come on, Sjoerddebruin, this is a bulk data import. Even if you could map most of the Rijksmonumenten to the new ~240.000 items, there would still be ~200.000 dutch streets at wikidata unused. And i bet that the Rijksmonumenten will map disproportionally to the ~1.800 dutch streets that already have WP articles. What else, will you import all home addresses of dutch politicians, artists, journalists, sportsmen? Or the dutch business directory? Is that the main goal of Wikidata? Actually, feeding Wikipedia articles is a main goal of Wikidata (or was?). --Atlasowa (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism mentioned above is real. Please maintain your items. Thanks --Haplology (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


It looks like Q15623447 (Q15623447) should be merged with Grant (Q230788), but there's a series of conflicts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Likewise Triple-alpha process (Q336225) and Helium fusion (Q1144695). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess the Triple-alpha process (Q336225) is always a Helium fusion (Q1144695) but a Helium fusion (Q1144695) is not always the Triple-alpha process (Q336225). --Diwas (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
@Diwas, Pigsonthewing: Does anybody understands what
< Triple-alpha process (Q336225) (View with Reasonator) > composed of search < Triple-alpha process (Q336225) (View with Reasonator) >
        of search < subset (Q177646) (View with Reasonator) >
 is supposed to mean ??? The qualifier seems not to make sense. If it's supposed to mean every times a triple alpha reaction occurs, a helium fusion occurs, the statement
< triple alpha reaction > subclass of (P279) miga < helium fusion >
means exactly that. Overwise their is absolutely no semantics defined. See Help:Classification and Markus' comments on this rfc for more informations. TomT0m (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you mean
< Helium fusion (Q1144695) (View with Reasonator) > composed of search < Triple-alpha process (Q336225) (View with Reasonator) >
        of search < subset (Q177646) (View with Reasonator) >
. I have tried to figure that sometimes Helium fusion (Q1144695) is a chain of several processes and one of this processes may be the Helium fusion (Q1144695). Helium fusion (Q1144695) is sometimes a single process, but sometimes it includes more processes. --Diwas (talk) 07:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Diwas: That make sense, but the of search qualifier ??? what is that supposed to mean ? TomT0m (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
@Diwas: I see you built several of those kind of statements ? What are those ? for example ? TomT0m (talk)
Maybe several but not dozens, so it will be not a problem to revise it. Q19361458 (Q19361458) is mostly a part of one of the several types of places/streets but not parts of common streets. I am not sure about the of search, but it seems to be a restriction of the statement. Do we have a specific property for qualifiers stating that (mostly) one of several values applies or one of several statements applies? --Diwas (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't understand TomTom's post or the replies to it. However, I note that Triple-alpha process (Q336225) includes a link to lb:Heliumbrennen. No one has addressed Q15623447 (Q15623447) / Grant (Q230788). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I had added some (maybe not perfect) statements to Triple-alpha process (Q336225) and Helium fusion (Q1144695), because I think that it both are not always the same. Triple-alpha process (Q336225) produce only carbon (Q623) and gamma ray (Q11523), but Helium fusion (Q1144695) may produce oxygen (Q629) and neon (Q654) too. But I am not a physicist (Q169470). I guess , too. I guess you can see lb:Heliumbrennen as Triple-alpha process (Q336225) with additional informations or as a Helium fusion (Q1144695) with a too specific header section.

Maybe Q15623447 (Q15623447) should be merged with Q1251158 (Q1251158) but I don't know. Hello ..., are there any users speaking cs, hy, kk, lt,pl, ru, sah or uk and maybe de or sv too and be familiar with finance? --Diwas (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
well, AFAIU, and in French financial system, a "grant" is money given to an organisation, that it can use freely... a "dotation" (Q1251158) is money given generally according to a regulation, and for a specific purpose… for example, the Government may give "grants" non-governmental associations, but will give "dotations" to local services, for their official function. - so, it's not the same purpose, and they are not given according to the same regulations, nor by the same organisations… to me, these 2 should NOT be merged. --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Protection indicators[edit]

Katie worked on a script that shows a padlock on protected items. You can enable it on Test Wikidata and see it in action here. I propose that it be enabled as a default gadget on Wikidata, until a real server-side solution is available. --Ricordisamoa 12:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it (the padlock) there. Jared Preston (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You need to enable it in your preferences. It's a gadget there - not enabled by default. I also missed that first... --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, the padlock is so far out to the right side, that I missed it. But other things, that I do not see in for example Project:Village pump (Q16503) makes it still more visible on that project than here. For example the black [edit]-buttons with mouseover-text who explains that the page is protected. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else? People not seeing they can't edit has been brought up many times as a big issue to me so it'd be good to get a few more yay or nay on this :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

One question I had was if there should be padlock indicators on all pages (e.g. including wikitext pages) or only items and properties? I think there would be no objection to the latter, and then it could be extended to all pages if people want.

Regarding the [edit] buttons with mouseover text... it is nice but is inconsistent with how MediaWiki core (non-item/property pages) work, is buggy implementation and has other issues. The indicator will work more reliably and eventually we would like to have it work via a MediaWiki extension or such instead of a gadget. The gadget is more of a short term, easy solution for now. Aude (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

New patrol tool[edit]

Hey. To fight against vandalism, I wrote an oAuth application which is similar to Special:RecentChanges but has some more features:

  • 1-click patrol button
  • select edits by type (edited terms, sitelinks, merges...)
  • mass patrolling
  • clickable edits comments, i.e. identifiers of external databases and URLs are linked
  • hints showing you various additional information, e.g. if the format of an identifier is violated
  • 1-click translation button for labels and descriptions
  • automated description when hovering over the item's label

You find the tool on I hope with it that some more users get motivated to patrol recent changes. --Pasleim (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This is wonderful, thank you so much!
How can we ensure this gets found even by people who don’t look at the project chat, or when this topic is archived? —DSGalaktos (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Awesome work Pasleim! I'll distribute it over our other channels (twitter, mailing list, facebook and co) later today and will also add it to the weekly summary. In addition it should probably be linked on the pages about patroling. Could also go in the header section of recent changes? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This is seriously great! Is your source code on Github for pull requests? Or somewhere else? --Denny (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. You find now the code on --Pasleim (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting tool! But can I see left column in my language? Or more: a filter for viewing changes (label/desc/sitelinks) only in some set of languages (e.g. from Babel)? --Infovarius (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's a really great tool, yes, thanks, and yes, such a filter would be nice. Also, having the possibility to show more than 100 edits might help, though I could imagine you implemented that limit to push us in actually patrolling the edits rather than just scrolling down the list. One more thing: If I undo an edit, it disappears and I have no way (other than opening the "your edits" list) to check other edits of that user, so I'm likely to miss other vandalism. --YMS (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Infovarius, YMS: You can now filter by language, if you query by edited terms, i.e. label/desc/alias. Labels are now shown in your language and you can see up to 250 edits yet. The restriction to 100 edits was mainly because of performance issues. --Pasleim (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Awesome and interesting tool! Now we at least have a page with all unpatrolled edits. Great work Pasleim! Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible mistakes in Wikidata[edit]

Hello, As you may know I wrote Kian, the first artificial neural network to serve Wikidata, I used results of Kian to report possible mistakes in Wikidata based on Wikipedia. These are two reports based on French and Dutch Wikipedia. For example:

Q425430: 1 (d), 0.198071051892 (w) [0, 0, 8, 3, 0]
1 (d) means Wikidata thinks it's a human (it has P31:Q5 statement).
0.198071051892 (w) means French Wikipedia thinks it's not a human with 80.2% certainty.
Other parts are debugging stuff. and as you can see French Wikipedia is right. Note that some results may be outdated.

You can easily check them and fix problems. User:Sjoerddebruin: I think you like this.

If you want please tell me and I run this for other languages. Amir (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes! A German list would be pretty cool! --FischX (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Do I understand it correctly that, for now, this is checking only P31:Q5 for each of the given Qids? --18:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
How is anyone supposed to make sense of these codes? The only part of "Q35820: 0 (d), 0.93274580186 (w) [5, 0, 8, 4, 0]" that I understand is "Q35820" Kaldari (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@FischX: User:Ladsgroup/Kian/Possible mistakes/de. @Kaldari: Yes, you are right. I created a more-human readable version in User:Ladsgroup/Kian/Possible mistakes for all languages. What do you think? Amir (talk) 14:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, thats great! --FischX (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is result for English Wikipedia. I did some more advanced feature engineering and the results are pretty damn accurate. Please have a look and fix items. Thanks Amir (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Good evening,

Editing genders frow the Game, I found today an awful lot of items wrongly marked as Q5… (never seen so many incorrect markings since I cleaned up the (OBSOLETE) main type (GND) (P107) a few months ago)… and when I checked the historic, I found "Dexbot (discussion | contributions)‎ . . (1 093 octets) (+621)‎ . . (‎Affirmation ajoutée : Adding P31:Q5 from English Wikipedia (Powered by Kian)) "

a lot of them had that kind of edit summary, so I guess, there must be something twisted in the way the bot has been "powered" by Kian… a lot of these items are music groups, music, films, books, families, duos, firms, but also lists of people and even ethnical groups !!

Ladsgroup, could you please check how Kian works… I usually take the time to manually edit that kind of errors, but there are so many that today, I just flagged them… and I obviously was not alone… Wikidata:The_Game/Flagged_items.

Thanks --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Kian becomes more accurate as the time goes by (It has high precision and recall even now) It works based on categories and in some cases pretty bad categorization is responsible for the error. e.g. w:Tamil Trinity. I check the errors and fix them by hand or by bot. I maybe change the system to to use w:tf-idf of certain words and analyze based on this. Anyway thank you for informing me. Amir (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Let me give a prespective on how accurate Kian is. I added about 50K P31:Q5 statements based on Kian and 500 of are identified as error. It's 99% and It's a great number in AI, even though we should make it more precise as the scale is so huge. Another way of seeing accuracy of Kian is to see how many errors it detected and compare it on how many errors it created. about 3500 errors are detected by Kian (Only based on English Wikipedia and not other languages). It's seven times more than errors it created. What do you think? Amir (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

well, when working on huge numbers, 1% is a rather high number of errors... ;) - I'm really conscious that Kian is in development, and must improve... I just wanted to inform you of some types of very usual mistakes... working through categories explains a lot about the errors, if you include subcats - all works from a creator being categorized as Q5 ,like Bach's)... LOL
personally, I tend to prefer semi-automated work, like Magnus's tools, that make an educated guess about an item, but lets a user decide if that guess is right or wrong... :)
one thing, IMHO, worsens the automatic work.... Kian's claims are "sourced", which tends to make them more reliable in the eyes of a patroller... do you add a special tag, so that those edits can be specifically patrolled for mistakes detection ? - for now, I use the gender-Game to detect such mistakes, which are easily detected there...
thank you for that tool, that, at least, unburied old items that were not identified as humans because of strange names...
keep up the good job, Amir, and maybe, if you could put on a page how we can help you improve Kian ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, In order to improve Kian, please flag errors in the wikidata game or here Amir (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange problem[edit]

For some weird reason, my recent Widar edits were marked as "reCh" instead of "Widar". Does anyone know why this might be? --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I got the same problem 2 days ago ... --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
in fact, I just saw that ALL my recent edits from the Wikidata Game were wrongly tagged Special:Contributions/Hsarrazin (Balise : reCh [1.0])
I don't even know what reCh is, and AFAIK, never used it, but only Widar (since the Game uses Widar) :(( --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
reCh is the patrol tool I introduced last week. Can you go to and and logout on both pages and then login again? --Pasleim (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, I made a try at your tool, Pasleim, but was not clear enough to understand how to use it, then :)
should I login back on both again ? or just widar ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You can login on both pages and then tell me if the problem still exists. --Pasleim (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
seems ok on both sides now… difficult to patrol between very various languages, though :/ - do you think you could add a link/button on "new items" to ask for speedy deletion, when obvious spam, like Q19689142 ? nice tool, just difficult to understand what to do ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

merging items in the Dictionary of National Biography ( Q1210343)[edit]

"Pulcherius (Q19089232)" is a page in the wikisource Dictionary of National Biography which is effectively a redirect to "Mochaemog ( Q19049325)" - another page in the DNB. It is a redirect in the DNB itself however so it is reproduced verbatim (but enhanced with a wikilink) rather than being a wiki redirect. I think we should merge these pages and delete the sitelink to "Pulcherius (Q19089232)". Anyone else have an opinion? Filceolaire (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering about DNB entries as well. DNB entries at wikisource seem to be problematic.
Another question is if these sitelink should on an item about a person (P31:Q5) or on an item about a biographic article.
The wikisource entry could be in a statement on an item about a person, but probably not a sitelink on such an item. --- Jura 15:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: is thinking about what to do with these. Personally, my preference would be to create a "DNB entry" property and put Wikisource links in there, from the item about the subject (similar to Oxford Biography Index Number (P1415)). However, crosslinking from the subject to the DNB entry item would also work. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray:: Agree. Here is the proposal: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#DNB_entry_at_Wikisource. --- Jura 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, a decision needs to be made about the future. The initial point by @Filceolaire: is about the type of "soft redirect" from the Dictionary of National Biography that is called a "See article" on Wikisource. These articles have not been systematically created on Wikisource, so far. I don't think they should have Wikidata items as such.

The other point brought up by @Jura1: and @Andrew Gray: is more complex, and I have been discussing it by email. Before a property is created, could we consider the virtues of having the biography here as a separate thing? There are some attractions to me in having a complete "DNB quartet", namely a pair of a Wikisource page and matching Wikidata page, linking both ways, and another pair of a Wikipedia page (English) and matching Wikidata page. The biography Wikidata page should link to the conventional Wikidata page through a "main subject" statement, and the precise edition (which matters for the DNB) through a "part of" statement.

One reason this all interests me is that a large effort has gone into linking DNB Wikisource pages to English Wikipedia articles, with over 75% matched. This means most of the "main subject" links could be put in by a bot. With a caveat or two, that are also revealing. Checking along the links could show up two things: (a) cases where the proposed "main subject" link was not to a page carrying an ODNB number (OBIN); and (b) cases where the Wikipedia page linked to does not yet have a Wikidata item. Case (b) means the items should simply be created here. Case (a) can happen when, for example, a biography of X on Wikisource gets linked to X & Co., the company X founded.

This is all useful to understand, and underlines the way that Wikidata brings rigour, denying that "instance of" should just be over-ridden, as well as indexation.

So I do see quite some virtues in the apparently complex version, with four pages linked round in a sort of cycle. St. John, Spenser Buckingham (Q19053982) is a sample of the sort of page I mean. I suppose @ GZWDer: should be involved in this discussion? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, Jura I created a new item DNB redirect page ( Q19648608) and made Pulcherius (Q19089232) and "instance of" this item. Does that work as a solution?
I am strongly opposed to having separate wikidata items for WP articles and for wikisource/DNB pages. If these are about the same person then they should link to the same wikidata item which will have various statements about that person.
Statements about the DNB itself will be on the wikidata item about that edition of the DNB and will have site links to the wp articles about that edition and to the wikisources table of contents page for that DNB edition.
OK? Filceolaire (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
No, as I don't think WikiSource has a policy of only accepting DNB. --- Jura 04:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Jura Do you mean that wikisource could end up with two or more pages about the same person? Say a DNB item, a DNB redirect, a 1910 Britannica item and an author page? Or did you mean something else? Filceolaire (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure. It could even have several versions of DNB about the same person. Only author pages seem fine to add to items with P31:Q5 (Sample: Q937). --- Jura 05:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire:: Thank you for presenting a solution for the "soft redirect" issue.

On the broader point that has been raised here, you wrote "I am strongly opposed to having separate wikidata items for WP articles and for wikisource/DNB pages". OK, but we have to look further.

There can only be one link from a given item to a given Wikisource version. As things stand, the Author: namespace pages are privileged, and if there is an Author page linked from an item, there can be no further enWS links from that item. Therefore in some cases the DNB page would necessarily be two clicks away from Wikidata (this is how things stood until recently). In other cases they would be linked from Wikidata?

This would be a system with a serious inconsistency built into it, and not I think good for the longer term. What @Andrew Gray: has proposed does address it, but I see a lost opportunity in it for bringing the metadata from Wikisource over here (as well as the link-following advantages I detailed before).

It will occur often enough that a given person has a DNB, Britannica (different editions) and say Catholic Encyclopedia page, and this person need not be an author. Wikisource has disambiguation pages, though the system is not as thoroughly developed as we now expect on Wikipedia. So the unique enWS link could be to that, in case there isn't an Author: page. So "Author overrides disambiguation" could be the solution. I discussed this aspect of the issue some time ago with @Magnus Manske:.

Let me try and summarise a bit:

  • I do see operational advantages in having "data item" links from Wikisource DNB pages (and other pages), and these can only be achieved by having items here that link to them.
  • With a special property, as Andrew suggests, there would not be a "data item" link, but from a bot point of view a "string lookup" could find the relevant item. Better for machines than for humans.
  • The privilege given to Author: namespace pages (for enWS) as the link from Wikidata is convenient rather than something that works specially well.
  • The decision about how to handle these matters does relate to data, namely whether the metadata for pages such as the DNB's will be included in Wikidata, or simply left in Wikisource headers.

Please note also that the DNB has 69 volumes posted on Wikisource, so it is has numerous tables of contents. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Notability says "On Wikisource, items for mainspace pages, ... are valid, ... The status of subpages of mainspace pages (for example, individual chapters) is undetermined." but why these DNB pages are named "xxx (DNB00)" instead of "Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/xxx"?--GZWDer (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The use of a suffix rather than a prefix for the DNB was decided in 2008, before I was active on the project. It does have some advantages over subpage style, for those typing in page titles, which I do all the time. It is surely a side issue in this thread. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Charles Matthews, GZWDer, @Andrew Gray:, Jura the situation, as I see it, is as follows:
  • Wikispurce can have multiple pages about the same person, taken from different encyclopedic texts.
  • The Wikidata software does not allow us to have sitelinks to all these pages from the one wikidata item about this person so we have to have multiple wikidata items, each with a sitelink to a different wikisource page about that person.
  • we would like there to be an easy way to put a template on pages related to this person linking to the other pages about this person.
  • To do this we need a property which can be used to create a statement linking from the main item about a person to all the wikisource pages about the same person.
  • We may also need a symmetric property to put statements on the wikidata item for the wikisource pages and link this back to the main item. This can then be used to create a disambiguation template, to put on the wikisource page, linking to all the other wikisource pages about this person.
Is that right? What should we call these new properties? I would like it to be more generic than "DNB entry at wikisource" so it can be used for other reference works besides DNB. Could we use described by source (P1343) for this property or do we need a new property? Filceolaire (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In that (expansive) scenario, using main subject (P921) to link one way, and described by source (P1343) the other, looks to me like a comfortable solution. I suppose that from the point of view of harvesting disambiguation content on Wikisource, the URL on Wikisource needs to go in the described by source (P1343) entry. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
described by source (P1343) doesn't seem suitable to identify unique items for specific DNB entries. --- Jura 12:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
there is also another problem here… one wikisource (en, for now) may have numerous biographic items from different biographical dictionaries, but the same person may also appear in more numerous biographical dictionaries in many other languages... on fr, we have a "Dictionnaire" project, that groups more than 250 dictionaries, among them, a lot are biographical collections. A system should be designed to allow linking to all articles about the same person, on every wikisource… that cannot certainly be achieved through a wikidata linking for every biographical article… and those articles CAN NOT be considered as Q5 - which many of them have been marked by bots… a reflexion between wikidata and wikisources projects should be engaged to find a satisfactory solution for both projects, before creating thousands of completely erratic items... also, those articles are often used as "source" for wp articles… --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Here we go: Wikidata:WikiProject DNB. --- Jura 11:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


This item seems to have at least two different topics mixed together, but I don't know how to separate it into two items. If someone could help me with that (or point me to a page that explains how), it would be much appreciated. Mr. Granger (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

for me the wp-articles fit in one item, nl emphasizes different but also belongs there. Or what do you think does not fit. Oursana (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the en.wp and en.wv articles give a list of scams, whereas the fr.wp and nd.wp articles seem to discuss one particular type of scam (apparently the one described in section 8.15 of the en.wp article). In particular, the item is labeled as an "instance of Wikimedia list article", which seems appropriate for en.wp and arguably also for the Wikivoyage articles, but certainly not for nl.wp, fr.wp, and de.wp. Mr. Granger (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Granger This is what we call the "Bonnie and Clyde problem". Where some wikis have multiple focussed articles and others have one general article but none have both. We have to split the wikidata items because otherwise we can't make statements that are true about both the general and the specific items but if we do split the items then the sitelinks are broken. See my proposal for a property to help fix this.
To split an item first create a new item (menu item on the left side).
Delete sitelinks from the old item then add them to the new item.
Alternatively enable the "Move" gadget; (on your preferences/gadgets). This should add a "move" link next to 'edit' above each group of sitelinks
Enable the "LabelLister" gadget as well. This adds "Label Lister" to the left side menu. Clicking this will show you every Label, Description and Alias in every language for the current item. Go through these on the old item and delete any that no longer apply to this item and add these to the new item if appropriate. You'll be surprised by how many languages you will understand enough of to do this.
Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Mr. Granger (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Milestones template[edit]

FYI, I created {{Milestones}}, using code from Jura's user page:

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also {{Milestones-long}}:

universe (Q1) invalid ID (Q10) Boston (Q100) Gabon (Q1000) Dutch Wikipedia (Q10000) Cadier en Keer (Q100000) water crisis in Iran (Q1000000) Category:Panagyurishte (Q10000000) invalid ID (Q100000000)
Earth (Q2) Norway (Q20) 2 (Q200) invalid ID (Q2000) Crawling (Q20000) Dúné (Q200000) Stasina americana (Q2000000) invalid ID (Q20000000) invalid ID (Q200000000)
life (Q3) United States of America (Q30) Sagas of Icelanders (Q300) Lauenburg (Q3000) 119 (Q30000) Ars-en-Ré (Q300000) list of mayors of Westdorpe (Q3000000) invalid ID (Q30000000) invalid ID (Q300000000)
death (Q4) Austria (Q40) Jenna Jameson (Q400) Mahajana College (Q4000) Kim Chaek University of Technology (Q40000) Tomorrow will be better (Q400000) Hildegard Gölz (Q4000000) invalid ID (Q40000000) invalid ID (Q400000000)
human (Q5) invalid ID (Q50) lemon (Q500) Emperor Shengzong of Liao (Q5000) victory (Q50000) Tim Jitloff (Q500000) Template:Snooker tournaments (Q5000000) invalid ID (Q50000000) invalid ID (Q500000000)
invalid ID (Q6) New York City (Q60) Ichiro Suzuki (Q600) 1331 (Q6000) Saetgang Station (Q60000) Czechoslovakia at the 1980 Winter Olympics (Q600000) Erik Gabrielsson Emporagrius (Q6000000) invalid ID (Q60000000) invalid ID (Q600000000)
invalid ID (Q7) Bern (Q70) Swedish Chef (Q700) Silbermond (Q7000) Rougemont (Q70000) SMAD proteins (Q700000) Giuseppe Murnigotti (Q7000000) invalid ID (Q70000000) invalid ID (Q700000000)
happiness (Q8) Tim Berners-Lee (Q80) Costa Rica (Q800) Japanese Grand Prix (Q8000) Childersburg (Q80000) Ivanovka (Q800000) Category:Medalists at the 1984 Winter Olympics (Q8000000) invalid ID (Q80000000) invalid ID (Q800000000)
invalid ID (Q9) Paris (Q90) Kazan (Q900) Alpignano (Q9000) Rodolfo Wirz (Q90000) invalid ID (Q900000) Category:Langen Brütz (Q9000000) invalid ID (Q90000000) invalid ID (Q900000000)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


{{Milestone properties-long}}

invalid ID (P1) video (P10) invalid ID (P100) record held (P1000) invalid ID (P10000)
invalid ID (P2) place of death (P20) lake inflows (P200) invalid ID (P2000) invalid ID (P20000)
invalid ID (P3) continent (P30) ISO 3166-2 (P300) invalid ID (P3000) invalid ID (P30000)
invalid ID (P4) child (P40) platform (P400) invalid ID (P4000) invalid ID (P40000)
invalid ID (P5) author (P50) exclave of (P500) invalid ID (P5000) invalid ID (P50000)
head of government (P6) invalid ID (P60) Wine AppDB-ID (P600) invalid ID (P6000) invalid ID (P60000)
brother (P7) invalid ID (P70) Kemler ID (P700) invalid ID (P7000) invalid ID (P70000)
invalid ID (P8) invalid ID (P80) notable works (P800) invalid ID (P8000) invalid ID (P80000)
sister (P9) invalid ID (P90) invalid ID (P900) invalid ID (P9000) invalid ID (P90000)

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

ISSNs for web and print[edit]

Faraday Discussions (Q385884) (for example) has two values for ISSN (P236), one for print the other for the online version. Should we use qualifiers, or separate properties to distinguish them. In either case, what should these be, or be called? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Periodicals Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

eISSN is sometimes (not always) used to distinguish the electronic one, but many online-only journals report a single ISSN without calling it anything special. I would suggest just using both and a qualifier if needed. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
clearly, in future years, paper editions will tend to disappear, while e-editions will appear… a qualifier seems more than enough to me :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

fecha de publicación dentro de versión[edit]

Buen día. Agregue la propiedad fecha de publicación a la entrada de fluxbox y desde wikipedia podía usarla {{Propiedad|P577}}; sin embargo, la han eliminado como declaración y la dejaron dentro de la propiedad versión. ¿Me pueden orientar como recuperar ese valor en wikipedia? Muchas gracias. petrohs (gracias) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@PetrohsW: Hay una pagina por discusion en espa~ol aqui: Wikidata:Café per no hay mucho actividad... Mi espa~ol no es muy bueno pero, puedo tratar ayudarte. No se entiendo tu pregunta... ?Hay informacion aqui en Wikidata y en w:es y los dos son diferentes? —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Koavf: My english is poor. I add the property publication date to the fluxbox and from es.wikipedia could use {{Property|P577}}; however, have been removed and set in property version. Can I be oriented as retrieve that value in wikipedia?. petrohs (gracias) 02:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@PetrohsW: Si la propiedad fue eliminada en Wikidata, entonces será imposible llamar el valor desde Wikipedia pues ya no existe. No podría explicar por qué fue eliminada, pero sí que fue eliminada por un administrador de Wikidata. Si acaso la propiedad no puede volver a ser colocada en la entrada, entonces deberás añadir la fecha de publicación manualmente en el artículo de Wikipedia. Allan Aguilar (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Muchas gracias don @Allan Aguilar: Esperaba que existiera algo como {{Propiedad|P348|sub=P577}} para obtener valores anidados. petrohs (gracias) 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Help verify WikiGrok data before bot starts running[edit]

As I've mentioned here before, the WMF mobile web team has been experimenting with micro-contribution interfaces for adding metadata to Wikidata from within Wikipedia articles. These experimental interfaces are very similar to Magnus's Wikidata game, but instead of posting the results to Wikidata immediately, we have been collecting the results in a database so that they can be aggregated for better accuracy. Now that we have collected a large number of responses, we would like to try posting some of the aggregated data to Wikidata and get community feedback on the quality and usefulness of the data. User:Atlasowa has suggested that before we do a test run of the bot, we first post some of the edits that the bot would make and get the community to scrutinize them for errors. That should give us some idea of the quality level that can be expected from WikiGrok edits and help inform how and if we should move forward with the feature (and also help the community decide how to proceed with our bot approval request). I've posted a list of the first 100 potential WikiGrok edits here:

Please help to vet the accuracy of these potential edits by filling in the table on that page.

To learn more about our immediate plans with WikiGrok, please read through our bot approval request. To learn more about WikiGrok in general, please see our extension documentation. If the project ends up moving beyond a purely experimental status, we will also be creating an FAQ-type page for more community-focused documentation. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Kaldari (WMF), you [deleted the manual vetting that i did, without message or comment. Thanks, buddy. <sarcasm/> Now Pasleim has done the same work a second time. I'm done wasting my time on this. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Atlasowa: As explained in the text that I added above the Delete section, the correctness of the deletions is purely dependent on the correctness of the corresponding insertions. That's why they were originally filled in with "N/A" which means "not applicable". For example, if adding the claim "studio album" is not correct for an item, it is also not correct to delete the "album" claim. I'm sorry if that was confusing. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The list of proposed edits do not indicate what citations would be provided to support the edits. So I would rate them all unacceptable at this point. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The issue of citations is explained in the bot request. I'm currently only asking for people to vet the accuracy of the claims in the table I have posted. The acceptability should be discussed at the bot request. Thanks. Ryan Kaldari (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How to deal with lists split by first letter[edit]

There are hundreds of cases on Wikidata of items like Q6596289: Wikipedia lists that are split by their first letter (in this case D–F). There are a few potential problems here:

  1. The items are often not disambiguated, for example Q3834238 has the same label and description as Q6596289. Should they be disambiguated in the label, the description, both, neither?
  2. They often don't align between wikis. For example, one wiki might have 1 long list, while another one divides the list into 26 smaller lists, and another one divides it into 10 smaller lists.
  3. These items don't really represent distinct concepts, just arbitrary divisions of a long list. Would it make more sense for us to merge them up into the parent list item (in this case Q2593450)?

Kaldari (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As they are separate pages at Wikipedia, we end up having an item for each. For use in statements for other items, these are rarely of much use to Wikidata. --- Jura 07:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kaldari, Jura1: I dealt with this in this item some time ago list of Unicode characters (Q17081188) (View with Reasonator). It's an interesting example because the list is huge and is split into sublits, and subsublists ... Oh no, it was Unicode block (Q3512806) (View with Reasonator) what a mess /o\ Oh no, it was more like items like Unicode characters from 1B000 to 1BFFF codepoints (Q3513269) (View with Reasonator) I dealt with ... If it can be useful, I wrote a script to do some of the work. It is old so it might not work anymore, an it needs to be worked on to complete the work a little bit more. TomT0m (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi all, I just changed the item for photographer (Q33231) to be a subclass of artist, not author. Does anyone know why it was set to author? Thanks, Jane023 (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this edit by Andreasmperu (there had been no 'subclass of' before). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
OK thanks - maybe he meant creator not author, which is also possible. What is the difference between creator and artist in this hierarchy anyway? Jane023 (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
creator (Q2500638) has subclasses artist (Q483501) and author (Q482980) (and a few more). My point of view: artists' field is art, autors' field is written works. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it, thanks - I totally agree. Jane023 (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Creator would be better; some photopgrahy is art, other (medical imaging, astro-photgraphy, etc.) is just pressing a button. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
All linked articles seem to be concerned with photographers as performers of a craft, often after absolving a vocational education (there are other professionals too, like journalists and architects, whose output is generally protected by copyright law but we would not necessarily view upon them primarily as artists). -- Gymel (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

next step for header redesign and bug fixes are live[edit]

Hey folks :)

As announced earlier we've just deployed the next step towards the new header design. We're not there yet but this is the next step. This will allow you to collapse the in other languages box for example and adds a hint about how to configure the displayed languages.

In addition to the new header the next deployment will bring a lot of under-the-hood changes and bug fixes. The most relevant changes for you are:

  • we made the diff for time values more meaningful
  • we fixed a lot of bugs in the time datatype
  • edit links are no longer cached incorrectly based on the users permission (This lead to users sometimes seeing edit buttons on pages that they could not edit and no edit buttons on pages that they could edit.)
  • we fixed some issues with propagating page moves and deletions on the clients (Wikipedia, etc) to Wikidata
  • we corrected an issue where you would see new data in the old part of a diff (This affected qualifiers mainly.)
  • the sitetointerwiki gadget now also works on diff pages
  • the precision is now detected correctly when entering a quantity in scientific notation
  • we added mailto as an accepted protocol for the URL datatype

Please let me know if you encounter any issues. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Look at some edit summaries in logs like RecentChanges or Contributions. Previously you could see labels of changed properties (instance of (P31)), now you see just P31. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I've filed phabricator:T93804 for it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Fix for this is being worked on right now. Should go live in the next hours. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Too many usability and design bugs...
Lidia, could you say when development team fix bugs and redesign sitelinks section? Please, it is too hard to work with it now. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look into these. I don't understand the issue with the second image. Can you please clarify it for me?
Sitelinks section has gotten fixes and will get more. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Items in aliases section are not separated enough. All aliases are looked like single non-separated text line. Pipes are too small separators in line with uppercased letters. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks. Now I understand. Will see what we can do to make that more obvious. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Good work on the redesign and bug fixes. I'm glad to see a "configure" link next to the "In more languages" section. I was hopeful that you had finally included all languages in this section too, as the collapsible section implies a large amount of information might be inside. But I was disappointed that most languages still remain completely hidden from the user (without any clue given to their existence), creating a confusing and incomplete experience for the user. At the end of the "In more languages" section there still ought to be a "more" button to reveal the other languages, or simply include all the languages in the table (as it's now collapsed by default anyway). User-preferred languages might go at the top of the list, and/or be highlighted. Glad to see some visible development work on a Wikimedia site all the same, and thanks all involved. Pengo (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Pengo! You are absolutely right. This is the way I want to go and we do have a ticket for it at phabricator:T92759. There is still one open question that you might want to comment on there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it a bug or a feature that when I click on a label or an alias in the collapsible table, the value is removed? It doesn't happen all the time, but occasionally. —Wylve (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That does sound like a bug indeed. I will try to reproduce it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to reproduce this and it does not happen for me. Which browser are you using? Is anyone else having the same issue? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm using Firefox 36. I looked more closely at the symptoms and it appears that when I click on the label (this applies to descriptions and aliases as well) it is highlighted for a brief half-second then the entire text disappears. If I highlight a label then switch tabs and switch back to the tab containing the item, the label disappears. This only applies to unsaved changes. Hope this helps. —Wylve (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mpfh. No that still works fine for me. I will try it on some other computers here. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Lydia. Also, is it possible to make the languages appear in the collapsible table in the order I put them in my babel box? —Wylve (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
What's other people's opinion on this? It is probably possible (but I'd need to ask to be sure if more people think this is useful.) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. In my case, I naturally ordered my own babel boxes by knowledge/interest, as I suspect most people would. It also makes it more configurable (which the user must be interested in to have bothered to add babel boxes in the first place). Pengo (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok I have filed a ticket to track it at phabricator:T75654. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Another rather interesting bug: when I rollback an edit I see a message informing me about successful rollback (that's normal). However, there is also another irrelevant message about some revisions being unavailable. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I see the same:
Reverted edits by (talk | block); changed back to last revision by Stryn (talk | contribs | block).
Return to blaa blaa blaa.
2 revisions of this difference (123 and 456) were not found.
This is usually caused by following an outdated diff link to a page that has been deleted. Details can be found in the deletion log.
--Stryn (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Bad. I have filed phabricator:T93866 for this. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin: you should create a user page with something like {{#babel:ru|en-3|....}} so the software knows what languages you want to see. Multichill (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Very strange... Base language is configured in settings. Additional languages are configured in absolutely another place. This is looked like usability bug. {{#babel:...}} is used to show known language set to another users. But description section require languages used for working. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
another edit summary bug: this edit summary has two superfluous brackets. --Pasleim (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): And this one? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I missed this. Thanks. I filed phabricator:T93896 for it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pengo: You can activate LabelLister gadget in your user preferences to see and edit all labels, descriptions and aliases in all languages. I dunno why this is not activated by default fo all users. The language presets is defined in three different ways: 1. Language selector, 2. language fallback chain (assistant languages) 3. babels on user page. There should be one spot to define everything for improved usability.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


Today I cannot fill in descriptions. Pages that have No description defined yet and No aliases defined are missing edit buttons for descriptions and aliases. How do I circumnavigate this? --Gereon K. (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That was really fast :) Click edit next to the main label. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Worked for me. :) --Gereon K. (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


The way pages present seems to have changed with regards different languages, is there anyway we can change it back to the way it was in personal preferences.--KTo288 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please let me know what you don't like about it? (It was announced here and available for testing.) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Conservatism I guess, I've grown used to a page looking the way it did, and working with it as it was. Sorry but I normally don't visit this page. The first I knew of the change was 30 minutes ago. For me, I guess the best way to describe it is the irritation you feel when you sit at your desk and reach out for something and not find that its not in its normal place, then look and see that your desk has been rearranged, logically no doubt, but not in the way you're used to.--KTo288 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I just discovered it too. It's great that this languages part of an entry takes less place, but I am a bit bothered to see that long labels/description are cut... At the very least, I'd like to be able to read them in full in a tooltip on mouseover. For the "In more languages" button, I think a nice evolution would be to have it under the languages box, to show the languages that are not in my babel list (for example, I don't speak Spanish, but it would sometimes be useful for me to see if there is a label in that language), and maybe along with another link : "Add a language" to add a label/description in a language that is not yet on the list... -Ash Crow (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
For the too short descriptions we now have phabricator:T93807. For allowing to edit more languages we have phabricator:T92759. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
What on earth are we supposed to do with those, install what, where, how?--08:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

New GUI broke several tools[edit]

  • Since the deployement of the new GUI, it seems that the Game answers do not appear in items anymore... no use adding genre to an item, it's just not taken into account :(
  • seems to have been solved - or was it a lag problem ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know but I had no problems with adding claims via The Game yesterday. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • also User:Joern/altLabels.js does not appear any more… was quite useful.
    ping Joern. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • claims added through Wikidata useful do not appear with re-loading the page manually, which may lead to multiple addition, or worse...
  • it should be possible to edit directly the "main" language fields, like before…, and allow the "drag-and-drop"... - very convenient from the "Preview" gadget... this table, table, as it is, is not logical, not easy to use, and much too small for long labels and tired eyes... --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
also, the recently redesigned rule, that allowed direct access to project links has disappeared... it's not useful anymore for accessing claims, but for sister projects, it still is ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested target items menu[edit]

Not sure if this is related, but today when fixing a statement for P21, I typed "male" and Q6581079 did not appear at all. --Haplology (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I can reproduce it. We're looking into this as well. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment for changed label[edit]

Today the last one from me: this edit summary is wrong (I have seen more, they all were changes of labels). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

A fix for this is being worked on right now and should go live in the next hours. Tracking at phabricator:T93853. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous user vandalized Queen Victoria by renaming her, but the change showed up as "Created a new item" --Haplology (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I was able to reproduce this when editing via a special page. Created a new task for this issue. Aude (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy questions[edit]

(moved to WikiProject Taxonomy)

@Pengo: You will probably want to go to WT:WikiProject Taxonomy. (My personal view on items 1a and 1b is that there should be 2 items if there are two different names in different language Wikipedias, and that the links should be stored according to the name. YMMV.) --Izno (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've moved my questions there to avoid duplication. Pengo (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How to sorting statements?[edit]

Help:Statements#Sorting statements seems not be working. --Diwas (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorting statements was disabled as the code was not very good, so far as I'm aware. --Izno (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
see Wikidata:Contact the development team#Why are the triangles vanished --Oursana (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion on[edit]

This is a notifcation that there is a disucssion of wikidata at's Reliable Sources Noticeboard. See Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Replied. TomT0m (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

main property (P1687)[edit]

Is it ok to link more than one Item in main property (P1687)? Conny (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC).

RKDartists (Q17299517) seems a better place for one of the properties. On Netherlands Institute for Art History (Q758610), you might want to use "see also" instead. --- Jura 19:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Inferences and redundancy[edit]

Is Wikidata able to make inferences about statements, or redundant statements need to be made?

For example: if there is a statement listing occupation as "politician", this implies that the subject is human. So, saying that the item in question is an instance of human should ideally be redundant. (If I understand correctly, the same applies to sex/gender: "male" implies "human" - there is "male animal" non-human sex/gender too.) What I'm seeing though are logically redundant statements about items: a "politician" who is also an instance of "human". Is this supposed to work differently in the future? GregorB (talk) 18:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@GregorB: Wikibase does not make any inference at all. It's basically just a store and a user interface atm. There is atm. no plan to implement this see Wikidata:Development plan, the query engine who will replace {{WDQ}} is far higher on the priorities, and words lately has been it will be SPARQL based on the backend at least. But the door to inferences has not been closed according to User:Denny, one of the creator of wikidata in an earlier discussion. But not in the forseable future.
But if the software itself can't do it, the multiple clients might be smarter if community decides some rules about this :) TomT0m (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I suppose the best way to get rid of redundancy would be to enhance the query engine with inferential capabilities. So, when asked "is John Doe a human?" the engine would say "yes" if John Doe is a politician.
Also, I suppose it's currently possible to create contradictory statements: e.g. one cannot be both a "human" and a "cat". Hopefully down the road Wikidata will have the ability to reject (or at least detect) these. GregorB (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fortunately, some contradictory statements are detected already: Wikidata:Constraint violation report input. GregorB (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I would assert that a politician may not always be a human. How? There are fictional characters whom we might want to assign an occupation and those persons are not necessarily human. As well, there are animals increasingly (according to certain countries legislatures and their courts) being treated as a "person" for the purpose of certain classes of things. Now, I find it unlikely that there should ever be a non-human person who ends up with an occupation ("showanimal" might be an interesting one that exists today)... Right now, we have property constraint violations as you have yourself noted, and so we fix the ones that actually are violations and leave the others as-is... But we have to add the constraints ourselves, of course. Which would probably be no different than if we were able to do this under the hood of Wikibase rather than over-the-hood with a bot. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Kellessar zh'Tarash is a politician and not human! And she is not female, at least not a female of a kind we are used to. She is a zhen, one of four genders among the Andorians. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
...and there is a character in Spaceballs who is both a human and a dog. :-) This is not a showstopper, it's just that certain inferential rules do not extend to fictional characters. So, if X is a politician and is not a fictional character, then X is human - otherwise, all bets are off. :-) GregorB (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I do not think you have to be fictional to have heavy positions in the society. Incitatus (Q935895) for example! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Why look to fiction? Catmando (Q1050083), politician and party leader of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party (Q1421227), is a nonfictional cat. For other examples, see Non-human electoral candidates (Q2740853). --Yair rand (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: Of i guess this inference would have a guard, forming a Material conditional (Q7881229) (View with Reasonator) to be made only when the stuff is not fictional :) If we assume every inference on humanity has to be safe in a fictional world, we won't get anywhere :) TomT0m (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Stubbs (Q7627362) --Denny (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@Denny: Thanks for reminding me why i'm translating paraconsistent logic (Q426592) (View with Reasonator) in french :) TomT0m (talk) 11:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
For me the big redundancy we should get rid of is the cases where we have inverse properties like 'part of' and 'has part' but first we need the user interface to show the statements which link to an item as well as the statements which link from it. Filceolaire (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't really think it is a case of big redundancy. Duplicating some artist anthology several times in different places would probably be way harder to maintain and to model with constraints, for example. TomT0m (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Multiple coordinate location (P625) in the same item[edit]

Some Wikidata items have ambiguous coordinate location (P625) values for the same geographic location. It does not make any sense and in addition multiple coordinates cannot be displayed on one Wikipedia page and they break down templates that use global Wikidata item properties instead of locally defined coordinates. For instance, item Q15992735 has two different coordinate locations that breaks down the template in uk:3-я дільниця (see {{#coordinates:}}: error message there). We've got in total at least 43 such cases and thus we are hesitant to use coordinate location (P625) instead of local data for other templates. What solution would you recommend? Do we have to stick to local data for now? And what to do existing problem pages? --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You can design the templates to import only the proffered value or only one value if there are more than one of the same rank. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Q15992735 (Q15992735) it should be a single value, there were just two values imported from two different sources. In this case, I don't see any problem to delete the less accurate value, and probably the other cases which cause your problems are similar. However, multiple locations is something which could happen, think of a village located next to a river and rebuilt at a new location after destroyed in a big flooding - then the two location values should have qualifiers to mark the time at which each of the statements was valid. Or some external sources may give a bogus location, and to avoid confusion we add it here with the "deprecated rank". Ahoerstemeier (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for explanation, I see the point. BTW, can anybody please show me an example how to choose only one value out of several (the first one, with higher priority and by qualifier)? --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
You have to look at your module:Wikidata page ~in your Wp to see how to perform rank sorting. This is not a common code: each WP develops its code according to its need. Snipre (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If a property has several values and only one of them is marked as rank preferred then by default Lua should only give you back the one marked as preferred. That should be the easiest way to solve the issue of items where multiple coordinates are actually ok to have. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for additional clarifications. Indeed, using "deprecated rank" actually works. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that where are multiple values then the current value or the more accurate value should have 'preferred rank'. Values which were correct at some time have 'normal rank'. Values which are wrong but have been mentioned in sources or widely used should be 'deprecated rank' but left in so they don't get re-added in error. Wrong values which don't have references should not be included. The software should ensure wikipedia templates only get the preferred value. Filceolaire (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems that es.wikipedia is now almost exclusively using Wikidata for coordinates, I suppose it appeared to be usable enough. :)
@Pavlo Chemist. you template should still be able to cope with cases where there are two preferred values, or tow normal values and no preferred value. It is best done through a Lua module. The simplest solution is probably a "numval" option in a Wikidata-data retrieval module. fr:Module:Wikidata. If you set numval to 1, it only returns the first value that matches your query.
In the case of Q15992735 (Q15992735), I think putting rank = "deprecated" to the value from uk.wikipedia was the right solution: it signalled an issue for Ukranian Wikipedia users, but now that the issue has been fixed in Wikipedia, the statement can probably be deleted altogether in Wikidata. --Zolo (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation page descriptions[edit]

I'm creating a bot to add descriptions to items for disambiguation pages. I was intending to use the labels of Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), but it was pointed out that some of those labels would not make very good descriptions. I have made a list of the labels, would anyone be willing to help verify/correct them? User:Popcorndude/botcode3/labels Popcorndude (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The ones on MediaWiki:Gadget-autoEdit.js should be fine (or at least, I had been using them). --- Jura 05:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
While most disambiguation pages list articles whose connection is that their names are spelt alike be aware that some disambiguation pages group things that have other connections. These include 'surname' pages and 'given name' pages. Some of these can be recognised because they are the target of 'surname' or 'given name' statements on other items. Where I find these I have added the description 'surname disambiguation page' or 'given name disambiguation page'. Filceolaire (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

addressee property?[edit]

Is there a property for the addressee of a letter? Hazmat2 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of it. On Wikidata:Property proposal you can propose new properties. --Pasleim (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks, Hazmat2 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Financial Data[edit]

Is there any existing project group focusing on putting financial data into wikiData?

I do understand that market rates would be a no go zone for legal reasons. But it should be fine for static data like

  • market places
  • financial instruments (types, instances)
  • market place calendars
  • currencies
  • maybe even published balance sheet values
  • certainly value added items like zero rates for risk free term structures

as well as some economic data like

  • inflation rates
  • cash rate

Since I am new to wiki editing in general I have some questions:

  1. In general is wikidata the right place for this category of data?
  2. How well is wikiData suited for object types like time series? Where a combination of two items ("AU CPI"+"Publish Date") would create a new item. How would this be modeled in wikiData? Is a date an item?
  3. What is the best practice to remodel a/my data model in wikiData? Are there any specific references (other than /wiki/Help:Items)?
  4. How does wikiData deal with contributions where the data may be IP protected? I just want to know, no malicious plans there.

regards  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartkatt (talk • contribs).

We have Wikidata:WikiProject_Economics which is looking at putting economic data for countries and other administrative divisions into wikidata. Many of the properties proposed for that project could also be used for company balance sheets however most of these projects are on hold waiting for a currency datatype (or more specifically a 'quantity with dimension' datatype where the dimension is a currency) which we will probably not have for a while. When we have a currency datatype we will be able to have values for statements which specify a number and a currency associated with that number. This will permit us to compare values between different items and be sure we are comparing like with like.

This info will not be added to wikidata until we have a set of properties which can be widely used across different items. This means that it will probably be a while before we can add this info to wikidata. Filceolaire (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

For properly whacking oneself on the head with financial data models, FIBO is required reading :-) --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Strange on ru sitelink[edit]

What is the difference in ru sitelink in Q4035560 and Q4402964? --ValterVB (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

seems Q4035560 is latin-alphabet encoded (and would read CAP), and Q4402964 russian-encoded (and would read SAR phonetically)... Q4402964 points to Q4035560 as "see also, latin alphabet"... --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I've chnaged ru-links between these items according to phonetical similarity. --Infovarius (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

How to Model Complex Items (Vectors, Matrices)[edit]

To give you some context I want to know what is the best practice to model a time series in wikiData? Is a time axis a group of items? Or is it modeled as a key in a complex type? .. Is an instance of a day an item in the wikiData store (e.g. December 1, 2014: "") ? And if yes, who controls the insertion of this category? The general contributors?

So now to the main part of my question ..

What is the best practice to represent items in wikiData if they are of the type e.g.

  • vector
  • or matrix, table

I guess in wikiData every value in the structured object is stored as an item. The remaining question though is how to model the relationships between the items in wikiData to represent the structured object.

Here are my assumptions:

  1. to create an axis one would create an item to represent a group of column headers and one to represent an optional group for the row headers
  2. a duple of column header and row header form the parent of a cell (is there a query type which allows queries like "give me item where [a] is a parent and [b] is a parent"?)

So far so good ...

I guess it will be tricky to model something when both axis' are dates ...

But how would an order relationship in one group be represented in wikiData? e.g. item a >= item b

Is left to the querying client to apply the order relationship?

Regards  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smartkatt (talk • contribs).

In the general case for ordering, yes (though timelines are notable non-general case since years are certainly implicitly ordered).
I would avoid trying to model a matrix in Wikidata right now since I can't think of any elegant fashion to do so (nor would I want to, since we don't have the number with dimensions data type, which would be useful for most tables). Vectors (1D matrices) can maybe be modeled since they can be qualified in some ways. --Izno (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: From the linear algebra perspective, it would not make sense to do just vectors or just matrices. I wouldn't want to restrict the vectors we can model to just the field of real or even complex numbers. So many other things, such as tensors, can form vector spaces. For example, earthquakes' moment tensor solutions would be useful data to store.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how that relates to what I suggested, whatsoever. I simply stated "I don't think this is a good idea to attempt" and nothing more. I can see modeling vectors, but right now I think a matrix is beyond the power of statements + qualifiers. --Izno (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Where a table contains data with each line a separate datum then there are two ways to include this in wikidata.
If each line is data about a different item then each line can be encoded as a series of statements on the item for that line, with a different property for each column.
If all the lines of the table are related to a single item (say a league table for one season) then each line is a statement (name of participant) and each column is a qualifier to that statement (played, Won, Drawn, Lost, Goals for, Goals against, points).
As long as the same properties/qualifiers are used in the same way then (at some point in the future) it should be possible to create the table from this data, but it should also be possible to create other tables and graphs too. Filceolaire (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Badge needed for wikisource items...[edit]

Viswaprabha (talk)
Maximilianklein (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Filceolaire (talk)
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Vlsergey (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Books

Hello, wikisourcians and wikisourcerers on wikidata !

Now that some bot has imported almost every text in wikisource fr (and probably many more wikisources), without minding the community and the state of the texts, we need to be able to recognize texts that have been corrected and validated from incomplete texts... we intended to add to wikidata ONLY texts that were in good state, but hey, it's now past :/

I think it would be necessary to have 2 labels, one yellow for texts that have been checked by at least one corrector, and one green for those that have been validated by 2 readers...

I am almost sure there is a Wikiproject for wikisource, but I could not trace it. If someone could ping this group, it would be nice :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hsarrazin, Wikidata:Wikisource; I suppose this is what you want. And I concur with badge demand.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
yes, that was it, the discussion page - since I was looking for a Wikiproject, I just overlooked it  ;)
in fact, I checked icons on we use 100 percents.svg for texts that have been corrected and Comparé.png for texts that have been validated... but other wikisources may use different ones… so, what do you think ?
they should be distinct from wp badges, and be instantly recognized by the ws community… --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I added the ordinary badges in Q15635617 (Q15635617) (as a test) some time ago, and to me it looks like we would do fine with the same as WP uses! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
don't know wp badges, since I'm not really wikipedian... the gold one would be for "validated" and the silver one for "Corrected" ?
pb stands, the label on the badge is for "quality article" not for "validated text" ;) and those are Quality badges, like medals, wikisource's are more "completion" badges - LOL --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The criteria for getting a quality-badge on Wikipedia is unique on every project. On svwp, I know there are three levels. Two of them demands a voting procedure. The third level can be set by anybody without any voting.
You can design how they look locally! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yellow and green would be common to every wikisource I suppose. So if that is possible then it would be ideal.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #151[edit]

The "header redesign" is really "not yet there", at the moment I have to click on "edit" to see the full descriptions. How about some "show full description on mouse over" CSS hack? –Be..anyone (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
phab:T93807. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

List of persons[edit]

On we have a lot of "List of persons" (persons by name, by surname, by year of Born/Death, for activity etc...). I have create list of persons (Q19692233) and use it with instance of (P31). Is correct or there is a more correct item to use? --ValterVB (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference compared with is a list of (P360):Person? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I asked here to know :) I thinked that to have instance of (P31) in these items is good, so I have created list of persons (Q19692233) with subclass of (P279) = Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) then we can add is a list of (P360)=family name (Q101352) or given name (Q202444) date of birth (Q2389905)--ValterVB (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
is a list of (P360) is used on many different types of items: on category items, e.g. Category:Malaysian people (Q5912379), on disambiguation pages, e.g. Robert Rose (Q3263), on regular articles, e.g. Counts of Villafranca (Q3951152) and on list articles, e.g. List of architects (Q754679). So having both statements is a list of (P360)=human (Q5) and instance of (P31)=Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) (or a subclass thereof) is okay, as the first statement does not imply the second one. --Pasleim (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
list of persons (Q19692233) should be deleted and our standard is a list of (P360)=human (Q5) and instance of (P31)=Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) used. --Izno (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: I want to recall that instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) have properties, and that if list of person is a subclass of human and defined such that it is implied that a list of person instance has also a claim is a list of <human>, then everything is OK in the web ontologies world. We can partly use this property with a query like (see the source code of the page for a more readable form :
either instance of list of humans or with a list of human statement 
TomT0m (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
List of personhumans isn't a subclass of human. It's a subset, perhaps, but not a subclass, as the properties of a human do not inform us about a group of arbitrary humans. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Most wikipedia list articles are, in ontological terms, a class (i.e. a 'set'). As such we should do as follows:
  1. the name of the wikidata item should be editted to remove the words"List of" from the wikidata item name though "List of" should be preserved in an alias and in the wikipedia article name.
  2. add a "subclass of" statement
At least that is my opinion. Filceolaire (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No Category Assignments on Wikidata?[edit]

Category assignments (article<category and category<category) are not in Wikidata.

  • They are present on DBpedia (dct:subject and skos:broader respectively).
  • Is there a particular reason why they are not included in Wikidata?
  • In contrast, the topical relation article~category is in Wikidata (and is skos:subject in DBpedia dump files)

We need them for Europeana Food and Drink. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 04:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Because those things are not always the same in every Wikimedia project. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: So what? Assume article A1 on enwiki has cats C1,C2; article A2 on dewiki has cats C3,C4. Assume A1=A2 and C1=C3 but C2<>C4. Then A1=A2 will get 3 cats: C1=C3, C2, C4. Don't see what is the problem. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: I don't think we need category assignments in wikidata. Category is no knowledge but an arbitrary way to sort items that depends on the wikimedia project. It would not be possible to source that kind of statement and it would generate a lot of repetitions with the other statements. --Casper Tinan (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@Casper Tinan: Categories are most assuredly knowledge. A bit messy, lacking in organization (true) but very comprehensive. Wikipedians are very serious about their categorization (see numbers in the linked report). We need them for, or how else would you delineate a domain as wide as Food and Drink and its reflection in Culture? We also don't source Labels and Descriptions, but do you think you could live without them? As for "duplication", I am not sure what you mean. Cheers! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Deprecated rank or delete?[edit]

Help:Ranking tells: "The deprecated rank is used for statements that are known to include errors or that represent outdated knowledge. Marking erroneous statements as deprecated instead of simply deleting such statements has three benefits: [etc]"

But what to do about the statement: discoverer or inventor (P61):Paul Henry and Prosper Henry (Q302840) in 126 Velleda (Q137391)? The reference in the statement tells it is supported by Minor Planet Center (Q522039). But I cannot see that it does that today, and from what I know, it never has. Instead, I think the statement comes from Wikipedia. (The bot and it's owner is since long gone from this project and cannot be consulted.)

My opinion is that deprecated rank can and should be used for claims like: "Earth is flat". But I do not think deprecated rank should be used for claims that tells that the "Earth is shaped like a banana", only because a bot, by mistake, has imported that information from a Wikipedia-article.

A discussion on en.wikipedia recently stated that Wikidata is not a reliable source, and I would like to say: Wikipedia is not a source reliable enough to support deprecated claims, which are stated nowhere else! This does not mean I think statements based on Wikipedia should be banned, but that we should delete them, when they are wrong! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, at Lucy F. Simms (Q17386627), I found it preferable to include potentially incorrect values for date of birth (P569) as any researcher will eventually come across these values and will have to figure out if they are correct or not (and where they come from). --- Jura 10:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Importing data from Wikipedia to Wikidata does not suddenly make them reliable. So Wikidata is not necessarily reliable. Judicious deletion may help improve the situation. - Brya (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
If good sources tells diffently, I think there is no problem. People very seldom are born twice.
The problem in my case is that a bot has gone wrong. MPC has never said that both of Paul and Prosper discovered "126 Velleda". en.wikipedia claim that they do, but without external source who support it.
You may argue that the brothers cooperated since they are credited for every second discovery, but that is OR, and nothing we should bother to do here. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that if the error comes from the bot, it can be deleted (unless we want statistics on bots errors, but that's does not sound like a realistic method for doing them ;). If the error comes from Wikipedia itself, I think it can be also be deprecated, but only once we know that the error has been fixed in Wikipedia. --Zolo (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I need the TOC back[edit]

Where did the TOC go? Automatic TOC is one of the most important features of MediaWiki, which makes it superior with most document processing systems other than Latex. Wikidata pages tend to be extremely long, and I often visit them looking just for a specific piece of information like a sitelink: now I am no longer able to just click "Wikipedia" or "Wikisource" to reach what I need. Instead, on a page like Q44520, I'm forced to press page down 12 times. I'd rather have more things added to the TOC if possible, I can't do without a TOC. Thanks for the understanding, Nemo 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I really hated the TOC: always having to do the extra scrolling to get past it was very wearying. - Brya (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I found it useful...
Try pressing END once and then page up fewer times. Or adding #sitelinks-wikipedia to URL.
Also there will be an office hour tommorow where you can talk to the developers. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am trying really hard to remove clutter from our pages and make them easier to understand and scan. The navigation bar is one of the victims of this and I really don't want to bring it back. What I intend to provide is a way to collapse each sitelink section and move them around. So that if you are mainly interested in Wikisource you can just move that to the top and collapse the rest. I hope that addresses most usecases. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
But, on a small screen the sitelinks appear under the statements section. Navigation on small screens is terrible now. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Jep that still needs fixing. There should be way fewer cases where they move below the statement section in the future (When the statement section is redesigned). Which screen size are people using who have it move below the statement section currently? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well: I have a screen with a resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels, but I mostly divide the screen in sections. So 1280 pixels wide, tat's not enough sadly. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't you have added collapsing before removing the ToC? And I don't see why the ToC couldn't also be an option... --SamB (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is not registered on Wikidata[edit]

For almost two years I've been watching his void user page. How is it that our beloved Jimmy didn't even care to log in and see how a random item looks like? --Ricordisamoa 11:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should we care? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm with Sjoerd here. It would be nice for him to pop in, but it doesn't really matter. --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Weblink validation[edit]

Hello everyone, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikidata:Forum#Weblinkwartung?! (@Queryzo, @Pasleim) about webblink validation. Is there a bot or a tool which checks routinely whether websites (reference URL (P854), official website (P856)) are reachable (HTTP 200)? If not I could set up such a program maybe as an OAuth-application. --T.seppelt (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Tool to split an item?[edit]

I know there are a couple good Merge tools.

But I need to Split an item:

I am forced to conclude there were two Cesare Baglioni, and someone *** the cat in by taking the birth date from one and the birth place from the other.

What's the easiest way to split this item in two, copy the name, and dispatch statements between the two parts as I see fit?

Currently the easiest way is to create a new item and merge into that, then remove/revert to get the result wanted. A tool would indeed be handy. --- Jura 17:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Moving links is pretty trivial. I don't know that we can move properties yet (curse my recent extended but self-imposed absence). Start with creating a new item, move the applicable sitelinks, and go from there as normal. --Izno (talk) 18:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Better follow what Jura suggested, otherwise you have the pain of re-creating manually references for statements:
  1. Create a new item
  2. Merge the existing one to it (uncheck "merge to oldest" in merge tool)
  3. Remove all sitelinks from the target item
  4. Modify label and/or description of target item (2 items are not allowed to be exact duplicates)
  5. Restore the original item from its history
  6. Manually move appropriate sitelinks from the old item to the new one
  7. Delete or fix incorrect statements in both items
Indeed a tool would be useful. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for detailing it. I added it to Wikidata:Split items. --- Jura 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC) --- Jura 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably are the same person. L'enciclopedia Treccani said that was born at Cremona and moved to Bologna, but some detail about the biography (ex. travel to Rome) are the same. --ValterVB (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


I remember before that there was a tool thing (can't even remember the name of it, I think it was a tool) below the main label field where several labels from other languages could be seen and they could be clicked to set it as the label on the language you're currently viewing the site with. AltLabels doesn't work now with the recent header update. --AmaryllisGardener talk 22:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sitelinks for meta?[edit]

Any idea when we can expect sitelinks for meta to be implemented? --SamB (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)