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 mergers can be made here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Start a new discussion
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 April.

Wikidata Toolkit v0.1.0 released: Working with Wikidata in Java[edit]

I am happy to announce the very first release of Wikidata Toolkit, the Java library for programming with Wikidata and Wikibase. This initial release can download and parse Wikidata dump files for you, so as to process all Wikidata content in a streaming fashion. An example program is provided. The libary can also be used with MediaWiki dumps generated by other Wikibase installations (if you happen to work in EAGLE ;-).

Maven users can get the library directly from Maven Central (see the documentation); this is the preferred method of installation. There is also an all-in-one JAR at github (you will need to install the dependencies manually if not using Maven) and of course the sources.

Version 0.1.0 is of course alpha, but the code that we have is already well-tested and well-documented. Improvements that are planned for the next release include:

  • Faster and more robust loading of Wikibase dumps
  • Support for various serialization formats, such as JSON and RDF
  • Initial support for Wikibase API access

Nevertheless, you can already give it a try now. In later releases, it is also planned to support more advanced processing after loading, especially for storing and querying the data.

Feedback is welcome. Developers are also invited to contribute via github.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markus Krötzsch (talk • contribs) at 16:04, 2 apr 2014 (UTC).

Modifying license ?[edit]

Is there a possibility to change the current license of WD form CC0 to CC-BY in order to have access to more databases ? We have now the structure to include sources for each statement imported from external sources so we can upgrade the license in order to share more data with other databases. The big problem is to define if a data coming from WP sourced with "imported from" can be considered as sourced with a valid reference. Snipre (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned changing the license defeats the purpose of this site.今時 (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain why ? Snipre (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, CC0 is the ideal licence. It is the freest licence , allowing the greatest possible reuse of data and the closest thing to the public domain possible in many legal systems. CC-BY starts putting up boundaries and restrictions. Besides which, raw data is not always protected by copyright, so CC-BY may be copy fraud for a lot of content. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan CC-BY license is corresponding to the correct spirit of Wikimedia: Wikimedia is not a reference source so every information should be sourced. I think people never understand what is data. This a value AND a source. You can't split them because if you split them you won't be able to do comparison when different values exist for the same statement. Without a source nobody can trust a value and be confident to use it in another project. Snipre (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think CC0 is closer to the ideal of the spirit of Wikimedia and I try to release my own stuff under that licence whenever possible. CC-BY is just pragmatism, acknowledging that most people won't just dedicate their work to the public domain. Neither CC0 nor CC-BY have anything to do with sourcing. A downstream user can state a source for CC0 data if they wish and CC0 does not stop Wikidata from providing sources for all of its data. If the downstream user doesn't, that's their problem; they had the option and chose not to make use of it. CC-BY is just an application of French-style moral rights for the creator(s) of a piece of work, and even then, it can just be their pseudonymous name, which means nothing source-wise to anyone else reading the attribution. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan You are right about the fact that CC-BY doesn't deal with sourcing but if WD applies a strict policy about sourcing why not directly using CC-BY which requires to cite author and have te opportunity to deal with more databases ? Sourcing and giving the information about who provides the original data is not an option: 1) it is just an act of justice for the author, 2) it is an important step to be able to understand the importance of value of a data and to do comparison. My reasoning is very simple: we want to do a correct job with WD so we source every data taken from an external source so by doing that we comply with the CC-BY so we can use that license. CC-BY is no a contraint because it is the natural way to do a good job in documentation. Snipre (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre: Wikidata has internal policies to deal with sourcing. The licence only matters for re-users: a CC-BY licence only means that re-users have to name Wikidata as the source. It does not mean Wikidata has to provide sources. That being the case, being CC-BY won't make Wikidata any more reliable, nor any more well sourced. What CC-BY will do is put up barriers. We would be saying to people "No, you can't use our data unless you jump through these hoops." CC0 is free. It has no barriers, restrictions, hoops, hurdles, obstacles or constraints (except those that are inescapable by law). It means anyone can use this data, in any way, for any reason. This project it probably powering Google's Knowledge Graph information boxes, or is intended to (Google did put up a lot of the money to fund Wikidata). Google can do so under CC0 without linking back to Wikidata or crediting each and every person back down the chain. Everyone else can do so too. That is providing everyone with the sum of human knowledge; CC-BY is providing it only to those that agree to certain preconditions and aren't scared off by the legalese of the licensing terms. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@AdamBMorgan: No, you aren't right: you mix different things. WP as WD are not creators of data. The author mentioned in the sources should always be cited. WD can receive some attribution but never considered as the author. So CC-BY requires to give the name of the author that implies to give the original source of a data. So if you provide the sources of your data you respect that point of the CC-BY lisence which is the most critical. I don't understand why you consider citing sources like a barrier. Why is it a restriction ? Again it is never a constraint if you are doing a good job because a good job implies automatically the citation of the sources. And here you see the critical point of a database: to be able to use a set of data you should use have comparable data. If I take the example of denny of cities of the world and one typical data like the population, you can do a good job only if you have data of the same year and if possible calculated with the same method. For that you need to find sources offering the largest set of data with the same parameters so to find other databases. Working with databases reduces the list of authors to cite at the same time because you can source a whole table with the author of the data (not WD) and mention WD if you want (depending on the use of the data from WD in the case of short citation the name of the author is sufficient) as attribution. Snipre (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre:No, I think you're mixing things up. Licensing is completely irrelevant to sourcing. Wikidata can source claims while under a CC0 licence. Wikidata does source claims while under a CC0 licence. Licensing only affects downstream users. If I paint a picture and license it as CC-BY I am placing a barrier on re-use (they have to give me credit; if they don't, they can't use it). If I released the picture as CC0 there is no barrier (anyone can use it without having to fit into arbitrary constraints such as giving me credit). The same applies to Wikidata's data. Under CC-BY a reuser (e.g. Google, but this applies to everyone) would have to give credit to Wikidata, all the original sources, and possibly all the editors inbetween. What if Google doesn't want to do that? What is Google doesn't care about doing a good job and just wants a quick information box? Under CC-BY we would be forcing Google to source each and every datum; we would be placing a restriction on access to the data. Under CC0, Google has the option of citing our sources; they can choose for themselves to either add citations or not bother. (Again, I am using Google only for convenience; this applies to each and every user.) None of that affects whether or not Wikidata sources its claims, nor whether or not Wikidata is doing a "good job". - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I know the difference, but as I said, if we apply a strict policy about sourcing, we are safe concernaning a CC-BY, this means we don't have to modify our work. You are right about the lisence, this will affect the data users, but if the data user applies a strict policy about sourcing too, he just have to mention WD as additional parameter in his references to respect the CC-BY. What I mean is CC-BY is not a problem for data user which works in an intelligent way. The main question is not CC-BY but if we apply a strict policy about sources. If yes CC-BY won't chamge anything for us. For WD users it is the same. I am not working for Google, but for WP, and the wikipedians want to have sources, so yes every datum should have source in WD because the main users of WD which are WP require it. If you don't provide source, WD is a copy of freebase so why do we have to spend hours in data import if Google can do it with its computers ? If we have a proper organization for sourcing (and we have it) respecting the CC-BY is not a problem because you can grab the source data in the same way as the value you want.
And you care about data users who don't want to source and what's about those which source their data ? Following your reasoning they will have hundreds of different sources for one type of data because with a CC0 lisence we weren't able to import data from an unique database.
Again here we have a question about the objective of WD. If WD is only a free data supplier in the web I thing we are doing the wrong choice because Google will always do better tools (or we will do similar thing than DBpedia) than us and specialists will always use their specific datbases. No if we want to provide good quality data for WP, so changing the lisence won't be a problem because they will respect the CC-BY lisence. Snipre (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
In the opinion of the WMF legal team "For EU databases, bots or other automated ways of extracting data should also be avoided because of the Directive’s prohibition on “repeated and systematic extraction” of even insubstantial amounts of data." Raw data is subject to this directive once it is put in a database. Many of the most useful databases are under CC-BY compatible licenses and I believe it would be worth switching Wikidata to that license so we can import their data. Any reputable reuser of our data would be happy to note where the info came from so I don't think it will create problems for them. Filceolaire (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree! If a lot of data from Europe have to be > 15 years old before we can add them here, the gain of Wikidata becomes limited. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree too. That said, I am wondering about uses like qlabel mentionned above. Would we need to make an exception for the label, or would there be other solutions (since the label does not necessitate any mention of a more primary source than Wikidata, perhaps it is ok in this case to just mention somewhere in the client website that it directly or indirectly uses data from Wikidata). --Zolo (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
For application like qlabel a simple mention is enough. This are a lot of websites which are copyrighted but this is mention in only one place. Snipre (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on free data here. I think it would be a huge mistake to not have a CC0 license. You say "For applications like qlabel a simple mention is enough" - which is not correct. CC-BY requires "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made." Appropriate credit is defined as "If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. Prior versions of CC licenses have slightly different attribution requirements." (Source: CC-BY)

Furthermore, you cannot simply grab the data from Wikidata and display it - the suggestion is to change the license of Wikidata so we can integrate data from external CC-BY sources. This in turn means that whenever some data from Wikidata is used, the usage needs to check if the statement has a source which itself is CC-BY, because that source needs to be mentioned as well - it is not sufficient to give credit only to Wikidata, but to all sources as well. Imagine a barchart of the population of the largest cities by continent, and imagine that each cities population comes from a different, CC-BY licenses source. A simple barchart would require lines of lines of required crediting, and half a dozen of links. Is that really what you want?

Also, to estimate the benefit of that switch - Which sources could we add additionally? What would be the gain? Why not CC-BY-SA, which would open even more sources? Etc.

I find the original argument "let's choose a more restrictive license, because it allows us to add more data" as faulty as if we would have been saying in 2003 for Wikipedia "let's choose a more restrictive license because then we could easier agree with content providers who want to donate their content to Wikipedia". No. If a data source sees the ridiculous and erroneous need not to be under CC0, well, let them do so until they understand how foolish and wrongheaded that is. But please keep Wikidata free. --Denny (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Denny, especially the last paragraph. Wikimedia was a key player in the adoption of CC-BY-SA and CC-BY, and that makes sense for artistic works. It doesnt make sense for databases of facts. I personally hope Wikidata never contains any data which is copyrightable - that is creative/artistic content, and it belongs on a separate project better suited to evaluating and combining creative contributions. Beyond the personal preference, I should also point out that using CC-BY is going to introduce all the problems of attribution of deleted entities - when we merge items, the history of the deleted item is not archived in a CC-BY compliant manner currently. If we assume copyright isnt relevant, the remaining issue is database rights. The extent to which EU databases are going to present a problem is yet to be seen. The EU directive is only one aspect. Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have had a very good track record in changing copyright practises of the content produces, and I am quite sure Wikidata will be just as successful. We are already seeing partners complain that Wikimedia Commons is not CC0. I expect that most databases we want to import will switch to CC0, or Open Database License (Q2419612) (like OpenStreetMap (Q936)) for the facts contained in their database, with CC-BY or similar for the artistic works contained within the database. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Where I live, something can be protected by law even if it isn't "creative/artistic". I cannot add such material here and I cannot use such material in WP, no matter if it's only facts. I even doubt that CC0 even is compatible with the law here, since I theoretically never can give up the copyright of my work. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Which country are you referring to? is there a court opinion in your jurisdiction which causes you to believe non-"creative/artistic" enjoy copyright protection? John Vandenberg (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
49 § Swedish copyright law protects databases, if they lack creative content, for 15 years. If the database is modified, the 15 years are prolonged.
And photos who are not considered as creative are protected 50 years.
It's the workload who is protected, not the artistic work.
Also photos taken from areoplanes and strategic installations, like military camps are protected. I even break the law when I tell you that the local branch office of the national bank in my neighbour city has a yellow painting. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Switching to CC-BY would not solve any of these problems, though. --Denny (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
A lot of databases are accessible under a CC-BY-compatible license already today. That's why we today can use them on Wikipedia. Without a link to the database, the use of that data would be illegal also on WP. -- Lavallen (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Denny:. Actually, it depends on what we consider to be copyrighted in a copyrightable database. Apparently, there is no database right in the US, and that means we can just extract whatever we please. But things are different in the EU and other juridictions. What should we make of the legal team opinion cited by Filceolaire ? If it means that we can't upload data from CC-BY-but-not-CC0 compatible European databases, this is a major loss (it seems to include all major open data websites, including such basic data as official populatin figures).
I do not think that the Wikipedia comparison is entirely relevant. In Wikipedia, if we can't get a ready-made external article, contributors can always create in using info they got from copyrighted sources. Here, if we are not allowed to get the data from an external database, there may not be any good way to get them at all. --Zolo (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
@Zolo:: I find the answer to your question obvious and painful: I am not a lawyer. I can not and must not give legal advise. Listen to the legal team. They are amazing, and they know their job. If they say no to write bots that copy data from restricted databases, don't do that. (And if you are in the EU, please get your governments to release basic data under non-restrictive licenses and get your chapters to lobby for that). Let's have Wikidata flourish and bloom - and one day they will want to get in. And then they will need to change. Don't have us change for them. --Denny (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
We are together with the se.chapter trying to have the geoshapes of some entities under a free license. But since it's a private company who makes them, I doubt that it would be easy to make them release them under PD/CC0. Map-designers and local authorities are the customers of this company and if they no longer can make any money, I'm afraid that information not even will be produced in the future. The national goverment is not interested in paying the company those money. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lavallen:: Is that company willing to release the data under CC-BY instead of CC0? If yes, why would their customers pay for that data? I fail to see how releasing the data under CC-BY or CC-0 makes any difference for the business model of the company. In both cases their data can be used for free. What am I missing? --Denny (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
They are maybe willing to release a few years old data to a free license. Now we have only access to 20 year old data and that by copying data from one of their customers, a customer we already are cooperating with. -- Lavallen (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Another example might be shapefiles for municipalities, counties and electional districts i Sweden. I believe that since the Swedish Ordnance Survey is by law obliged to give necessary data to the election authority and since they do not sell the data to that authority, it is free under Swedish Copyright Law, URL 9. However, I am not absolutely sure about my interpretation and therfore I asked the Ordnance Survey with a reference to Commons licensing. The response was that it is OK to use the data provided that they are attributet with "© Lantmäteriet". These shapefiles over election districts are of high quality and can be used to extract borders of communes and counties and can form the base for maps over a number of other administrative areas. They are of course perfect for visualisations of election results. Edaen (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
@Denny: the strange thing is that we are apparently allowed to use data from non-CC0 database as long as it is not done in a systematic fashion. But crowd-sourcing + human/bot intermingling might make the distinction quickly moot. We may not be allowed to upload the whole official population database of the EU, but we are allowed to import parts of it. What if it is copied by tidbits over a few years by tens of contributors ? For the record, there was a discussion about importing data from the French National Library (which are under a CC-BY of sorts, and the institution's open data manager apparently didn't see how importing them to Wikidata could be a problem, see Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/SamoaBot 32). --Zolo (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
+1 That is a problem nobody forseen: for most data import we can work under the short citation rule which mean by sourcing the data we don't have to obtain an use agreement. But for some data there are very few good sources or users will select some sources because of their accessibility and after some years we will have a large portion of different databases included in WD. Here we will have a problem even if it was not our intention. Most public data providers require the credit as condition to use their and often no commercial use. Here we will have a problem for the commercial option, but if we can already fix the problem of the credit, we will protect our interests. Snipre (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
+1 Doesn't make sense "adding-data-in-small-pieces" is considered valid and importing same data with a bot "illegal", because as it's said, maybe after several years (or decades) we'll have imported the same amount of data through "individual edits", probably from the same sources too (population figures at least). As long as we avoid this "atribbution issue" better for us. The point is this licensing change... that'd be a point-of-no-return, doesn't it?Totemkin (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
After some Google-search, it seems that that just like for Sweden, lawyers consider that the CC0 license is meaningless in France (because the law says that the author's moral right are "inalienable"). I guess that keeping a CC0 license would mean that we do not try to respect local law (and presumably that we only try to respect US law). In that case, and given that there are no database-rights in the US, I suppose we can upload data from non CC0 databases as well ? --Zolo (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend to ask the WMF legal team about input on this question.
Also, my understanding of CC0 is not that you give up your authorship (i.e. your moral rights), but rather that you explicitly state that everyone is free to do whatever they want with your creation, without restrictions - something that actually requires your authorship in the first place. That is the part relevant here.
Also, claiming that CC0 is meaningless in France and Sweden seems like FUD to me. Is there any court decision that actually confirms that? Any statement by CC? --Denny (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
After this discussion e after the answer of @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): in Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#License I am a bit 'worried. Maybe is better If I delete all the population data of Italian municipality that I have added with my bot, because the only source of the data is Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (Q214195) and they have a license "CC-BY" (Legal notes). In this situation none can add population (P1082), so I will delete all population (P1082) that I have added with my bot these week end (Saturday or Sunday). --ValterVB (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, too bad. I wanted to add the Dutch municipality population figures~by my bot, but the Central Bureau for Statistics requires attribution, so its not CC0. Michiel1972 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Same for French and Swiss data about statistics. 09:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Identifying properties that represent items in other linked data sets[edit]

We have a number of properties, whose values represent identifiers in other online databases/ linked data repositories. IMDb, for example. Some of these datasets are not well known, outside a region or a topical specialism, or both.

Suppose a string "foo" represents a data entry at whose URI is and P1 may have the value, "foo", to represent the equivalent entry in that database.

The documentation of P1 should include something that indicates the relationship, and URI structure, in a human- and machine-readable form.

By "URI structure", I mean that we tell parsers to concatenate "[string]"+"[value]" to make a URI; where, in this example, "[string]" is "".

I have implemented this on the OpenStreetMap wiki, as can be seen in the infobox on using a simple "URI pattern" parameter.

How might this be achieved on Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Properties on properties: Wikidata:Development plan#Statements on properties :)  — Felix Reimann (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but that seems to be something different - how would you envisage it working, for the use-case described above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Add a statement to property P1. This statement to have a new property "URI pattern" with the value "". This depends on the software being changed to allow statements on properties and the creation of a the "URI pattern" property with string datatype. 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That won't work, because we can't assume that the [value]] part is always the most right-hand component to the URI. Consider "[value]/bar". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You could do something like a $1, as is common in regexes e.g.$1/bar. I don't see it as a difficult problem to solve; we just have to let external reusers know the expected format for each URI "pattern". --Izno (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What happens of the URL structure at the target site already includes the string "$1"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now been informed of this page on meta, where Reasonator does the same thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Adminship anniversary[edit]

4 days ago, it was one year since my RFA passed (3 days ago for Hahc21). I know we haven't a reconfirmation process anymore, but I'd like to hear some opinions from the community about my sysop activity. I apologize for being less active recently – because of both real-life duties and deeper involvement in other wiki projects – but I am sure I will soon be back full-time. SMirC-hi.svg --Ricordisamoa 16:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So I suppose you have no objections... --Ricordisamoa 19:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

All labels are broken[edit]

I see all these <wikibase-itemlink>‎‎, <wikibase-history-title-with-label>, <wikibase-sitelinks-wikipedia>, <wikibase-aliases-label> and what is worse - I cannot see label changing in diffs. Infovarius (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Same problem. Both in english and greek. -geraki talk 06:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

:( Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Arghhhh. We're looking into it. Not cool. Sorry folks. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Still investigating. It's only happening now in JS (obviously no good) and trying to figure out how to fix this. Aude (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Messages should be fixed now on Wikidata. You might need to purge your browser caches. There still are issues with a few messages in the clients (e.g. Commons) and working on that. Aude (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Aude: Nope. Labels are still defective for me. - LaddΩ chat ;) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
We refreshed the caches, rebuilt all the things and everything possible, and put wikidata back on wmf21 (core). I think it should be fixed for real now, but can folks please confirm. Aude (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Now switched to correct labels for me. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yay! I think I know what to do to fix this quicker if it happens again (which scripts to run) and maybe how to avoid this in the first place. (scripts to run yesterday when we switched wikibase back to older version, due to time localisation bug) Thanks for patience with the problem. Aude (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
All is correct now. Thank you, friends! --Infovarius (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It's happening again, but only on certain things. I'm seeing <wikibase-statements> and <wikibase-sitelinks-wikipedia>. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's ok now. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I see raw variables here. Infovarius (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Good to see this fixed. But to put it in perspective, this did not make the interface all that much worse; something like the "In other languages"-hindrance is at least as troublesome. - Brya (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Why was Pong (Q16263330) deleted? It was not an orphan item - Wat Phra That Doi Yuak (Q16004213) links it as the subdistrict in which that temple is located; and if I am not mistaken my bot already had statements added to it. That item clearly is within the notability policy! If Wikidata does not want entries on all administrative country subdivisions, even they don't have an Wikipedia article yet, then I can stop editing here! This happened the second time to me already, again without even being notified, so I am starting to get pissed! Ahoerstemeier (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The item as you created it was blank besides the label, so how were we supposed to know? Then again that was pretty rapid of a deletion. This should be discussed at the administrators' noticebaord.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ahoerstemeier: I restored it. Please try to add more statements to items to protect them from being deleted. Mistakes happen during housekeeping but it is one of the most important tasks. Tobias1984 (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, seems it was one of the around 30 items I created last evening, all linked but not yet filled by my bot - planned to do that once I had all the subdistricts needed to connect the Thai temples with their location, which was earlier today when the bot spotted the missing item. Why was just one of the 30 deleted, was it just the name which looked suspicious to be a test? Seems to me that housekeeping process is still flawed here, there need to be more helper pages like User:Pasleim/notability to spot the really problematic items. By random manual deletion of suspicious items it will have many bad items survive unspotted, and collateral damage like this one. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ahoerstemeier: This item was probably more problematic because it is a short string and therefore causes many duplicate warnings (most likely with the game "Pong"). I would be better if the bot would add a instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) statement immediately after item creation. The bot should also fill the description and not just the label. The job of manually housekeeping a database of this size will always cause some mistakes. Hopefully we will have better tools in the future to tackle this. In any case it is good that we all keep an eye out for each other and assume good faith. That will keep this project on its course. Tobias1984 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me for this discussion guys... But anyway, I was just cleaning up and there was only a label for this item. Sorry, I'll will wait longer next time. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: Sorry, I thought I added you to the ping template but I forgot. Tobias1984 (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ahoerstemeier: If you have any suggestions to improve User:Pasleim/notability or ideas for new helper pages, feel free to tell them. --Pasleim (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Data release email templates[edit]

Splitting off from #Modifying license ?, we should develop template emails to send to rights owners of datasets, asking them for CC0 release and also a release of Database-Rights, like commons:Commons:Email templates. For datasets we already host, the template should inform them that some of their data is in Wikidata, and will be deleted if they do not explicitly consent to the data being in Wikidata. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I really like this idea. We should probably have the legal team do the final review on those, but we can probably draft good templates to use in a wide array of cases. --Denny (talk) 03:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support with help from m:Legal. And a notice like "if you don't give us your data, we will take it from a better source!" XD --Ricordisamoa 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikidata:OTRS but here we need the Wikidata team to do the job: they have to define what is required to be in the good side of the law.
@Ricordisamoa Don't expect to much from the legal team of the WMF: as Wikidata is a separated project, they always send back to the Wikidata team when you ask too precise questions. I had already had this experience about question on databases. WD is not under the respponsability of WMF. Snipre (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand this idea. When we aggregate data from many sources, we will overlap with other databases. As I understand the law, there is no issue at all when we do so. The fact that we include the same data does not make us a copy of a database. My question is what is the point ? GerardM (talk) 08:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM "When we aggregate data from many sources..." there is the problem: if we are not using enough different sources we will include large parts of some databses and then we will fall under the law. And in some cases there is only one source. One example is the population of the communes in different countries: there is only one source for this kind of data even if you find the data in different documents there is only one authority source. So by a systematic import by different contributors you will have at the end a large part of the official databases included in WD and then we have to deal with the law about databases. Snipre (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
When multiple sources are used that could be traced back to one source, it is unlikely to the extreme that we will have any problems. GerardM (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM You can pretend good faith and avoid any fees but if the authors require deletion we will have to do it especially if the authors uses a CC-BY licence: if the intermediary documents didn't the correct sourcing it is not our fault but this won't be an excuse to not respect the licence. So at the end the is the same for WD: no data. So if you want to spend time to import data and risk at every moment a massive deletion, fine for you but not for me. Snipre (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre you assume a lot. As I understand the rules on facts, you are completely mistaken. To me it seems that you have a paranoid view on these things. Facts cannot be copyrighted and consequently they cannot be licensed. GerardM (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM Before saying that I am paranoiac read that and please understand that if there a law about facts in databases, you can have trouble. All my assumptions are based on those laws and you on what is based your assumption that nothing can happen ? What you don't understand is if there is no problem with isolatd facts once you start to collect them in a systematic way you enter in another world. Snipre (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

geographical Properites missing: height (e.g. of mountain peak) and area (e.g. of a lake)[edit]

  • Height/Elevation (e.g. of mounttain peak) unit=meter
  • surface area (e.g. of a lake) unit=km*km;

no such thing in wikidata, but wikipedia has them typically:

Aleks-ger (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have the number with dimension datatype yet. Not sure when it's supposed to arrive. --Jakob (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
How to push the process? These numbers are could be restricted to SI-units in the first. Aleks-ger (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikidata:Development plan#Quantities and Wikidata:Requests for comment/Dimensions and units for the quantity datatype. - LaddΩ chat ;) 14:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Sidebar links between projects powered by Wikidata now possible[edit]

Hey folks :) Tpt has been awesome and developed a new feature. It allows a Wikimedia project to automatically link to other Wikimedia projects in their sidebars based on Wikidata data. So for example Wikipedia could automatically add Commons links in the sidebar of their articles. has more details as well as the process for getting it enabled on your project. Thanks Tpt!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk • contribs) at 10:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

Is it possible to add optional icons (could be enabled/disabled in user preferences) to links? Such eye candy was implemented in Russian Wikipedia.
I think will be good idea to hide Data item link which duplicates Wikidata in your implementation. This was also implemented in Russian Wikipedia.
It's necessary to disable mw:Extension:RelatedSites in Wikivoyage if your code will be deployed there.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko, Tpt:If you want to replace mw:Extension:RelatedSites, Please consider how to link to dmoz using Wikidata's dmoz (P998). a lot of Wikivoyage pages have dmoz link at related sites section.--GZWDer (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it will be reasonable to have additional links for family of projects of particular project. For example VIAF for all Wikisource editions and national library links for particular language editions. Sure, configuration options will be needed. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@EugeneZelenko: About icons I believe it isn't in vector skin spirit so I would prefer an on wiki implementation using a gadget. But if there is a strong demand from more than one projects, an implementation in Wikibase is maybe a good idea.
Since all project names start from Wiki, icons make names more recognizable. Language names are more diverse in comparison. Common implementation would be better then project specific ones. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
About mw:Extension:RelatedSites we should find a way to migrate smoothly from RelatedSite to this new Wikibase feature. It's something that won't be very easy and will require some help from Wikiyoyage contributors.
@EugeneZelenko, GZWDer: About dmos/VIAF links, as they aren't managed as Wikibase sitelink but as statements, it would require some very specific code. I'm not sure that Wikidata dev team will love such things.
Tpt (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Regarding DMOZ on Wikivoyage, they might not continue using that. See comment by user:Jmh649 at v:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Formal request: Renaming "Open Directory" as "DMOZ" in the sidebar[1]. However they are also considering adding OpenStreetmap - see v:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Formal request: Including OpenStreetMap in the sidebar. I think it might be better for these extra related sites to continue being part of mw:Extension:RelatedSites, but have that extension use Wikidata. i.e. complete sitematrix/sitelinks support in Wikidata client core ; other sites in Extension:RelatedSites (using the interwiki table I presume). John Vandenberg (talk) 07:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd presume the migration from mw:extension:RelatedSites would be done in the same manner as was done for the inter-language links; a robot pulls the [[wikipedia: (or [[fr: [[de: [[it: or whatever) link out of articles as the sidebar links are moved to Wikidata? K7L (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Data owners[edit]

Over at Wikimedia Sweden (Q15279144) we've been talking about the possibility of having data owners automatically updating entities related to their data. Examples could be:

  • Swedish National Heritage Board (Q631844) automatically updating the legal protection of a monument if the corresponding object changes in their database.
  • Statistics Sweden (Q1472511) automatically updating the population of a city when they have new statistics.
  • An authority automatically adding their identifier to an object which gets tagged with same_as:Wikidata:Q... in their database.

This could either be done by the authorities/data owners themselves or through some script watching for changes to their datasets. In all cases the datasets would be CC0 and the data owners would be aware of the process taking place.

What I wanted to know though is the position of the Wikidata community with regards to these things. Are there previous examples of organisations doing this (e.g. freebase-identifiers)? Is there a general feeling to how frequent such updates would be allowed to be? Would there be a difference whether:

  1. new entities were added (conforming with existing guidelines on relevance);
  2. new statements were added to existing entities;
  3. new values were added to existing statements.

Cheers, André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@André Costa (WMSE): There is the hot topic of the moment. Before any automatic system we have to solve the problem of the licence and without a clear authorization of the data owners to provide data under a CC0 licence we face a legal problem. Snipre (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this a CC0 licence is not compatible with copyright of Sweden Statistics:
"Question: Am I required to state the source when statistics are further distributed?
Answer: Yes, you are always required to state Statistics Sweden as the source. ("Source: Statistics Sweden")"
So the first task is to get the agreement for a data release under CC0. Snipre (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
When the copyright holder uploads information to Wikidata, it is implicit that the data becomes available under our license. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM: No, we need a special agreement in order to be sure that everything is clear. For me if I just contribute once I see only this in the edition interface:
By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
So if you want that by a simple upload everything is settled we should specify in the edition interface that data is under CC0 licence. Again an unique edit taken separatly from the rest is not a problem this is the whole database which is dangerous: even if one official society uploads some data this is not the proof that we can upload everything from their database. With implicit things you can always have problem, a clear agreement is better than everything. Snipre (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
My fault for using a bad example. Lets ignore the SCB/licensing-issue for now though, the main question is how we look at these types of automatic systems in general. (If I misunderstood and the licensing/OTRS issue in general is the current blocker for these efforts then my apologies). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Another technical problem is maybe that we have to solve the cases when Swedish National Heritage Board (Q631844) has several items in their database, where Wikidata/WP have only one. The example about Lunds domkyrka you mention at WD:PP is such an example. It also looks like fmis also have an item for many of the items in the bbr-database. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That is a good point. For the case of many-to-one relations I guess it would be down to which one wikidata/or the data owner considers to be the same_as/equivalent object. If it's the case that several identifiers are linked to one wikidata item then I would assume that any syncing mechanism would have to be set up so as to only update non conflicting statements. For the case of protected buildings listed by Swedish National Heritage Board (Q631844) their structure is building < complex < environment so for a complex with only one building the two are equivalent (as is the case for Lund Cathedral (Q1236689)). Similarly objects can belong to several databases (e.g. bbr and fmis as mentioned above or a person can be in both a database of painters and one of authors). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that we here should have one item for every item in other organisations databases. There is a related RFC about that. Two items in the bbr-database (protected buildings) would then result in two items here but maybe not an extra for fmis (ancient monuments), since it can be considered as another database, even if both bbr and fmiss belongs to Swedish National Heritage Board (Q631844). The relation to the WP article and the two items about Lunds domkyrka should then be related to the WP-article by an items who links to these two items like Domback (Q1879056) does today. Observe that this is my opinion, we have not fully agreed to work this way yet. This far, I have not seen any better proposal. -- Lavallen (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@André Costa (WMSE): There is no technical problem to import data: we need depending on the data a preprocessing step. But currently we have already some massive imports for official databses. The unique problem is the licence and the agreement to release data under CC0. It is not interesting to speak about technical problems and solutions if at the end there is no possibility to import due to licence reason. Snipre (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snipre: I am talking to big enough institutions that will import data to Wikidata. For them the license of Wikidata is not a problem. Your premise that technical issues are not relevant at this time are just wrong. GerardM (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
There are obviously two points of view: Bot owners do not see a major issue in importing data. Using pywikibot or other frameworks, this requires 20 lines of code (however, these are often problem specific). Thus, if you have data (in a specific format) ask here or at Wikidata:Bot requests and you will get help. However, I want to support Snipre: I also struggle with the fact that most data collections out there 'm interested in are not compatible to CC-0. While facts per se cannot be copyrighted, a collection of facts might bear copyrights nonetheless.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Then let's start to change this situation and get people to understand why opening up their data completely is a good thing. Wikipedia and Commons have done this before very successfully. We can do it too. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
True. @André: Regarding your question: Update frequency for these cases is IMHO not a problem. Do it whenever you have new data.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@GerardM: Ok, GerardM, next time you talk with your contacts, ask them to send a mail to the wikidata team with an agreement for CC0 release in the conditions specified in commons. In discussion no commitment is taken and this is the key point for WD. Snipre (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Lydia, can you say us if somebody from the wikidata team or WMF Deutschland can handle a template for demand of release under CC0 ? Or if we have to build something ourselves ? There are different persons working with data about populations who are waiting for a solution before doing some importations so if we can provide something quite fast we can preserve their enthusiasm. Wikidata:OTRS is still red. Snipre (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I will ask. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Snipre: - you say "For me if I just contribute once I see only this in the edition interface: By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."

This is not correct. If you edit data, it actually states "By clicking "save", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License.". Therefore a right owner of a database by uploading data to Wikidata explicitly agrees to CC0. This is allowed. Try with an incognito mode if this doesn't show for you anymore, because you can make that statement for the future, which is why you might be not seeing it currently.

Also Andre Costas original message stated that the data would be under CC0, which means there is no problem in the first place. I would prefer to keep this thread on the actual discussion, like entity reconciliation and how to map properties, and how to come up with processes where an external institution wants to keep a set of items up to date. --Denny (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons taxon categories[edit]

I am trying to obtain the Wikidata item that describes commons:File:Appias_hombroni.JPG. I know its species from the category 'commons:Category:Appias hombroni', but I cant see how to travel from that to a Appias hombroni (Q1963032) via mediawiki UI / APIs. This isnt an isolated case; I've noticed that the vast majority of taxon categories on Wikimedia Commons do not have a Wikimedia category page (Q4167836) here, and some do not have a Commons category (P373). Is this intentional?

The only API I can find that returns an item for the query taxon name (P225)=>'Appias hombroni' is WikiDataQuery - e.g.[225:%22Appias%20hombroni%22] That works for me, but it doesnt help the average person.

Do we want Category items for all Commons categories? The majority of Commons categories are not going to have interwiki links to Wikipedia, due to Commons having a much more detail-oriented categorisation system. I'm guessing that bots havent already created items for Commons as we're waiting for a better solution, such as items for File: pages, which would allow describing an image without needing Commons category system. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen that on some categories like commons:Category:Terpsiphone mutata there are interwikis to the Wikipedias, and those Wikipedia pages typically will have data items. But there are many species without a Wikipedia page in any language, like commons:Category:Sinthusa indrasari.[2]. I also see that my problem is Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links. ;-( John Vandenberg (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

population entry precision[edit]

i was adding a population for the state of Maryland Q1391, and the ±1 is imposed. this is not correct. this estimate has its own precision, or error that is not the last significant figure. is there a way to indicate this? Slowking4 (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Slowking4: Just add +/-n to the end of the number when you add it in (where n is the uncertainty). --Jakob (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the number datatype, I've noticed that it tends to round some figures up/down. Is this intended? -Digipoke (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
sorry don't know the number, i only know some census statisticians are perturbed by your information presentation. automatically assuming and presenting false precision is wrong. might want to fix it. Slowking4 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Need some comment about this request: Delete all population (P1082) added to Italian municipality[edit]

I think the right solution is to delete the data, but it is better to have a more extensive discussion. --ValterVB (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: change "source" to "reference"[edit]

There is, in my opinion, a small mistake in the UI of statements, as it uses the word "source" instead of "reference". I would like to see that changed. Reasons:

  • "source" implies that the claim is taken from that source. "Reference" implies only that the reference supports the claim.
  • "source" seems to carry a stronger legal impact than "reference". Copying content from a source can be problematic. Citing external content as a reference should not raise legal issues (but IANAL).
  • there could only be one source per claim, but numerous references. The latter is what the software supports. It also seems to be more useful for our goals.
  • it aligns more to the data model, the code, and the APIs, where "reference" is used. It is only the UI that is wrong about this.

Hope this finds support. --Denny (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - In all honesty, you should have fixed this before you left for Google though :p John F. Lewis (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree. It was an oversight on my part. As said, the data model and the code speak of "references" throughout. It really is just the UI message. It might have been that the shorter word was preferred and therefore used, to make the UI more concise. Not being a native speaker I did not realize the implication. --Denny (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support That was one of the main misunderstandings happening during the early talks on sourcing, still a good time to correct it.--Micru (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. If I am not mistaken, this is a MediaWiki message, and this proposal is to alter the English language message only (in the core code or the wiki interface message?), but with the expectation that other languages might update their translation if appropriate. 'source' has two meanings in English that are relevant - one meaning is the actual source where a fact was obtained from; the other meaning is any source where you may find further information about the fact. I really like 'sources', as that ambiguity works quite well in English for native English speakers, but I can imagine it will confuse many. Wrt 'there could only be one source per claim', that is complicated by scenarios where qualifiers may only be verifiable in a different source than the main claim. Anyway, I think Wikipedia contributors will find 'references' more intuitive, and that is what Wikidata should be aiming for at this stage. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportWylve (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Ralgis (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good plan. Lymantria (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support - Brya (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC) As long as the "imported from this here Wikipedia" is not transposed as well (a Wikipedia is not a reference).
@Brya:, I think imported from (P143) would appear in this new 'References' section. That is why I personally prefer the ambiguity of 'Sources'. However, we should eventually replace all 'imported from Wikipedia' with 'Stated in <authoritative source>'. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg:, including imported from (P143) might be acceptable when it concerns an external database, but the "imported from this here Wikipedia" is not information, but just metadata without real value. BTW: I don't really expect to live to see the day when all 'imported from Wikipedia' are replaced with 'Stated in <authoritative source>'. - Brya (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"the 'imported from this here Wikipedia' is not information, but just metadata without real value"
+1. Emw (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Tpt (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paperoastro (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportTotemkin (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Jason Quinn (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportΛΧΣ21 01:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Emw (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Linking an audio file pronouncing a topic to that object[edit]

Is there a property for an audio file which contains the pronounciation of that particular object? For example: in commons has the file De-Berlin.ogg which is the German pronounciation for Q64. Please let me know if it exists. Ogmios (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Four possible properties: Search:P:Audio. - LaddΩ chat ;) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that was what I was looking for. Ogmios (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
pronunciation audio (P443); don't forget to add a language qualifier.. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you too. But what do you mean with language qualifier? Ogmios (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Paris (Q90) is pronounced pAris in English and parI in French and parIs in Swedish, you therefor have to tell what language the pronounciation-file is in. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ogmios: See Property talk:P443 and Help:Qualifiers - LaddΩ chat ;) 18:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Approximate dates[edit]

How do uncertain dates get entered? I can't find anything in the help or policy pages. This is necessary with, for example, birth or death dates that are "circa X" or "between X and Y". I think I can approximate the latter with start date (P580) and end date (P582) as qualifiers, but that does feel like the best way to handle it. Not sure how to handle "circa" as that does not give a strict range of dates. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't do it through the UI... — Ayack (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
yes you can, to a limited extent. When editting a date you will see a link labelled "advanced adjustments". Click on this and you get options to switch from Gregorian to Julian and to change the precision from day to month to year to decade to century to millenium etc. Filceolaire (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've noticed that the Time data type has "before" and "after" values for uncertainty/precision. Are these currently used? Otherwise: I already use the month/year/etc precision (although not decade or higher so far), so that's one solution, and I'm thinking of proposing new qualifiers to be added to uncertain dates, depending on whether they would be redundant to before/after values. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and proposed a new property (floruit) and three new qualifiers (earliest date, latest date and circa) to cover this problem. I think this approach will work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

large dispatch lag currently[edit]

Hey folks,

Due to a too high edit frequency there is currently a massive lag in the change propagation to Wikipedia and co. This means changes don't show up timely there (but will eventually). We've already started stopping the worst offenders. I hope the lag goes down now. If not I will have to forcefully stop a few more. If you are editing at a high frequency with a bot or Widar please stop until the lag goes down. Thanks!

We're taking measures to prevent this in the future.

Please keep an eye on the lag at

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok it seems the situation is actually worse. No changes are being dispatched. We're investigating. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
We've found the issue on MediaWiki core and fixed it. Dispatches are working again. It will take some time to catch up. So please for now no bots and Widar still. You can run them again when the average lag at is down to a few minutes. Sorry again for the issue. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It's done. So let's the bots loose. :) --Succu (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Link FA / Link GA[edit]

Does anyone know when featured/good articles interwiki system will be managed by Wikidata so that these templates Link FA/Link GA will be removed from each Wikipedia ? Is it still in project ? I was told, when Wikidata was launched, that it was forecast.
I would be a great step, because bots are not very efficient to deal promoted/upgraded/downgraded/demoted articles and manual actualization on each Wikipedia is tedious.
Thanks for your answer. Best regards. Gemini1980 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Development plan#Badges. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What can we do with ... Foldscope (Q15935848) (view with reasonator)) ?[edit]

do we have yet properties for cost, resolution, magnification range and so on or will this wait until we finally get quantities with units ? TomT0m (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusion about redirects[edit]

Hi. Regarding data item The Gambler (Q7735675), I'm having an issue over redirects. I'm not sure how Wikidata handles redirects and I'm having trouble finding help; so any links for that would be good. The problem is this: On the English Wikipedia, there is an article for the entire Gambler TV movie series (The Gambler (TV movie series)) and each movie is a redirect which points to it. The data item is however clearly referring to the first film but its link was pointing to the series. I tried to fix this by adding the correct title of the redirect Kenny Rogers as The Gambler but Wikidata changes my entry to the target of the redirect, which is the series. Is this the behaviour we want? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Everlasting issue, see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/01#redirects. No development planned for that. In the mean time, "edit [the WP redirect page] to make it an ordinary page, add the page to [WD item], and then immediately make it a redirect again". - LaddΩ chat ;) 00:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Or create new dataitems for every film in the serie, see Kenny Rogers as The Gambler (Q16363554) Michiel1972 (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Showcase items for literature related items[edit]

Do we have showcase items for work of literature, collection of such works, etc?

I'm also interesting in metadata examples which describe work. I'm aware about characters, narrative set in properties, but I'd like to know how to describe approximate time frame narrated in work (for example, war, revolution, natural disaster, etc); topic or problem raised in work (social issues, politics, travel notes describing particular place, etc); etc.

Which property should be used for date when work was created?

EugeneZelenko (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

List of all properties[edit]

We have a problem with the list of properties: it is not updated and the splitting is not more correct according to the real use of properties. There a proposition to create a unique table with all properties with one column defining the application field. See Wikidata_talk:List_of_properties#Modify_the_list. Please commetn and propose ideas because it is important to be able to look for properties especially for newbies who are not familiar to the current names of properties so a search by application is necessary. Snipre (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

One effective solution would be to push the use of the missing props gadget which could . Otherwise think of the organisation of a by class list of properties using the {{Class documentation}} and {{Item documentation}} template and associate a relevant list of properties to a class it its documentation. Soon I'll add the code to show also the properties of the parent classes to the list, it's easy to code in lua. Also think of the proposition to think of it in the property proposal process and make the contract with property creators guys that they should update the class doc when they create the property. TomT0m (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Also note that the property proposal place in Wikidata seems like a big mess to me and that the creating rate of properties and the number of properties in the pipe is also quite high, this highligts we also have a problem with it. TomT0m (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)