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
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 2014/11.

Merge of President of the Maldives (Q1064606) and List of presidents of the Maldives (Q15272120)[edit]

Hi. I tried to merge these two items with a list of presidents of the Maldives. It did not work. So either I have to empty one item and add it to the other one manually or perhaps someone know a better way? --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that I have been able to get to work is empty one and add the links to the other. But I am not sure these should be merged - for example, there is an article, President of the United States, which is updated every four years as necessary to reflect the current President, and mostly discusses the office, not the current President, but does also have a list of all previous Presidents, and there is a separate List of article, which goes into a great deal more depth about each President than the President of article. 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There are some that are clearly lists in President of that can be moved to the List of item, like ptwiki Lista de presidentes das Maldivas, and List of links, or at least one, that can be moved to the President of item, like dawiki Maldivernes præsidenter 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But since there are no languages that have both types of articles, it would help to merge them all into "President of". As soon as there is at least one language that has both, they can be split, so that there would be a place for each. And if you like hold the List of item with a note to that effect (say in it do not use unless there is also an article about "President of" in some language. 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
But why do you want to merge them? /ℇsquilo 11:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I would like to merge them to get iw-links to all the articles. IMO we should only have one item for each topic. --MGA73 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
It is correct that we should have only one item per topic, but in this case these are two different topics in my opinion: "President of...." is about the position someone is holding, its history, its historical development etc whereas "List of Presidents of ....." is a mere list. I agree that the Wikipedia articles don't live up to that expectation right now, but that doesn't change the nature of the items themselves. --Mad melone (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
There are two options, as I see it. You can pick up all of the President articles by moving the links all to the "President of the Maldives" item (Q1064606), leaving the "list of" item as a redirect so that in the future they can be split (right now there is no language that has both articles), or you can use local interwiki links from iw- to all of the ones that are not picked up from wikidata. In both cases when you go to the iw- article you will see a list of all of the languages that cover the President, regardless of whether it is a list article or a plain article. None of the articles, though, are actually structured simply as pure lists, with almost no description at the top, but some contain "list" in the title and some do not. 05:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
They should probably stay as separate items. Kaldari (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reordering Statements wiki-style (non-js)[edit]

Is there any way to reorder (a lot of) statements easily (not one-by-one), either using wiki-style, or some kind of form? I tried to turn of the javascript on my browser, but then the page won't let me edit statements. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also how to add many statements wiki-style? Bennylin (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not possible at the moment. Sorry. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks Lydia. Bennylin (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) - what is the current sort order? Is it documented somewhere? If there is none, one could have the statements

  1. sorted descending by "number of occurrences of properties in statements", where "statements" refers to all statements related to a Q in the site, where site here means WikiData. According to Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties that would show "instance of" first. In case a description is missing, or even the label, the reader has already any idea what the nature of the Q is.
  2. grouped by data type of the values. In WikiData that would mean all IDs like ISNI, GeoNamesID etc. would be grouped, since they are strings.

Andrea Shan (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrea, there is currently no established sort order. I would support grouping all of the identifier properties like ISNI, GeoNames ID, etc. Such identifiers are not meaningful in themselves, and should probably be shown at the bottom of the list of statements.
I am less keen on ordering the remaining statements in any given item by their overall popularity. A more meaningful, intuitive ordering would be better. My initial impression is that the two "is a" properties -- instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) -- should be at the top. When an item has both instance of and subclass of statements, subclass of would be above instance of, because the former has more information than the latter. It's more interesting to know that a Corvette is a subclass of sports car than that it's an instance of car model; that a mouse is a subclass of mammal than that it's an instance of taxon; etc.
Beyond that, different communities of interest would presumably order properties in their domain as they decide. Certain generic properties are shared across domains, e.g. "cause" properties, should be grouped together, though their order relative to other properties groups may differ from domain to domain. Emw (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Emw - If there is no order, then it should be very easy to implement the option for sorting by data type in WikiBase. It should also be easy to sort by number of occurrences within each group - or if there is no grouping yet, of all statements. Cheap to implement, with large benefits. You mentioned subClassOf and instanceOf and want them at the top. That is not something that can be coded directly into WikiBase, since other installations may work with different properties. But instanceOf is at the top with my proposal anyway. Why subClassOf is not higher within Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties looks strange. A cause might be that the taxon tree is not integrated. But if that is wanted, then maybe WikiData-community thinks subClassOf is not that important. I would prefer WikiBase does not override that decision. My proposal is only for a very generic solution. Further things may take very long to be implemented. Mine is very, very easy. Andrea Shan (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Andrea, subclass of occurs fewer times than instance of simply because Wikidata has many more instances than classes, not because it is deemed less important per se. See Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web and the Wikidata RDF exports to get an impression of the special handling given to subclass of (P279) and its resulting taxonomy, even though they are not baked into Wikibase.
I don't think statement sort ordering should be coded into Wikibase. Wikidata developers have more important things to do, and sort ordering could be done via a bot written and run by a community member, and having it run as a bot would likely grant more flexibility.
Putting subclass of up top wouldn't be any more difficult than your proposal. The proposed ordering would require a list, likely a static one, pulled from Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties. Simply move subclass of to the top. This would certainly be easier than grouping identifier properties like ISNI and GeoNames together (which I think is a great idea). Emw (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Emw - You misstate what I wrote. Read again what I wrote with respect to the ranking of subClassOf, do you see that I didn't spoke about a surprise that subClassOf is lower than instanceOf in "popularity"? Regarding "would require a list" - this might be true, but that does not mean there needs to be a list in the form of a wiki page. It could be generated on page creation instead, or if there are performance issues, each property could have a "count of usage" field in the database. Then something like "Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties" could be part of any WikiBase, reachable via Special:<somename>. Very easy. Also the grouping of ISNI and GeoNameId etc are very easy - they are strings. If the modeling is well done, then one can have easy groupings very fast. A string for CommonsCategory is not a sign of good modeling, but coding around that is not worth the benefit. Coding resources are scarce, that is why I aim for a very, very easy solution. Andrea Shan (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
We will be separating out identifiers as part of the UI redesign. As for ordering by occurrence: I don't think that would give us any meaningful sort order. Awards for example would be way down while they shouldn't imho. The other thing we'll implement to help is a filter bar. That in combination with running a bot to order statements as you wish will solve it imho. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) - How long will that take? A month? A year? My solution is very, very easy, you can have it in a day. You say "IMHO" - I am not talking about a specific user's personal choice, but about a choice made by all contributors via their selection of properties. Your solution is centralistic, mine is crowd based. Some people may not care about awards at all. Relying on a bot introduces a dependency on them, some WikiBases may not have it, and even in WikiData, there is a delay. And it is not a bot alone, what Emw proposes also requires discussions about what to place where. My solution could be ready on Tuesday, if you would like. With 1% of programming time and no time on ranking discussions, one has already a large benefit. Items that have the same set of properties would immediately have the same predictable order of statements. At the same time the order for the most popular properties is relatively stable, since the occurrences differ quite a lot. "instanceOf" is far above all of them. That is also how the English Wikipedia starts many articles, "ABC is a XYZ". Boom, 24h you have exactly that in WikiData. Andrea Shan (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Andrea, I mostly agree with Lydia. Ordering by occurrence may be very easy and has some coincidental meaningfulness, but it would have major deficiencies at least for Wikidata. Subclass of would be too low, birth and death statements would have unrelated statements in between, kinship properties would be likely be unintuitively ordered, etc.
If you think it could be done in a day, though, I would encourage you to implement it on your own Wikibase deployment and post a demonstration of it to the Wikidata mailing list on Tuesday. Emw (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Emw - "coincidental meaningfulness" - really? Look at German Wikipedia where someone complaint about random order (User:Hubertl: Die Datensätze sind überhaupt nicht einheitlich, einmal stehen die Partnerstädte auf der Seite ganz oben (Chartres), einmal ganz unten (Ravenna). Als Wikipedianer bekomme ich sofort das Bedürfnis, das zu organisieren. Was aber nicht geht.) and sees that as a barrier to use WikiData at all. This could be solved within a day. Just a) add one column for occurrences into the table that contains the properties. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) - is there such a table? b) when building the page sort by that column descending. It's a solution for the problem of random ordering and puts more obscure properties lower. Boom, done. Implementing the occurrences counter should be done anyway, independent from statement sorting, so that each WikiBase can show properties by "popularity" at a page Special:AllProperties or Special:Properties or something similar. The programming cost that belongs to statement sorting is then only to add "ORDER BY occurrences DESC". I agree that it would be nice to have date of birth and deaths next to each other, and have kinship next to each other. But this is more work than "ORDER BY occurrences DESC". Andrea Shan (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SubClassOf too low[edit]

Emw - you said, sorting by occurrences would result in subClassOf being too low. Look at Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties. What comes before subClassOf?

  • Several identifiers - many classes will not have one, most of the popular identifiers belong to instances. If a class has an external identifier, then it is likely not as popular as subClassOf.
  • Coordinate location, citizenship, alma mater - will many classes have such? Most won't.
  • taxon name, taxon rank, parent taxon - if every taxon item would have a subClassOf statement, then subClassOf would be placed above. So, taxon-items generally don't have it, that means they will have these taxon-specific properties listed first. The problem "SubClassOf too low" does not exist. If one day these items are all properly classified (getting a subClassOf-statement) then this will list on top, since there are classes that are not taxa. Again, the problem "SubClassOf too low" would not exist.

For your other point, that subClassOf should come before instanceOf - how many of the 11 763 923 instances are classes? How many of the 161 660 classes are instances? Andrea Shan (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • 16% of classes have an identifier claim that is more popular than subclass of; see here.
  • 9% classes are also instances; see here.
Best, Emw (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Emw, thank you. The query for the 16% counts 26 514 items. The 9% correspond to 15252 items. I look at the statements of the first three items, which are the first for both queries:
  • Q3 life_ #7 "subClassOf: physical object", #8 "instanceOf: property"
  • Q4 death #3 "instanceOf: property", #9 "subClassOf: event" (Note: an event as opposite of a physical object)
  • Q5 human #1 "subClassOf: person, Homo, item with given name property", #22 "instanceOf: taxon"
under step one of my proposal the identifiers would still be mixed in, I took your first query and removed FreebaseID (646) [1] that yields 16230 items. If freebase is going to duplicate all WikiData content, then this will be have, irrespective of domain-specific issues. I removed P960 and P961 which are taxon-specific - if one taxon is a subClassOf, then all taxa should be subClassOf, if they are tagged consistently, then subClassOf will be above these two anyway. On the other hand, if it is kept as it is, then probably editors that edit in taxonomy think taxon-statements are more relevant than subClassOf-statements. I don't agree with that, and I can imagine, people would add many more subClassOf statements to taxa. I additionally removed P373 CommonsCategory, which is not an Identifier and since that is linkable as an item in another section is only an artifact. That leaves "3275 items", i.e. the 16% is down to 2%. The first three are now human, beer, Wikipedia. I don't know why human is still listed, and at which position subClassOf would be. Any idea?
For life and death the first step of my proposal would probably yield
  • Q3 life_ #1 "instanceOf", #2 "Freebase identifier", #3 "Commons category", #4 "subClassOf"
  • Q4 death #1 "instanceOf", #2 "Freebase identifier", #3 "Commons category", #4 "subClassOf"
which moves instanceOf and subClassOf upwards. "subClassOf too low" could be at #1 or #2 for 84% of classes immediately. Among the top four further 14%. At almost no programming cost and without cost in discussions and bots.
Additionally the sorting by occurrences makes problematic modeling, e.g.
  • taxa without subClassOf
  • Commons category as a string instead of linked item
  • duplicating everything Id like Freebase identifier (Freebase identifier does not have the quality of domain-specific identifiers. How are the IDs maintained in WikiData at all? If machines do it, what properties do they look at for matching? WD items can change and the not match Freebase content anymore, or the other way around.)
more visible. Please support sorting by occurrences to make design problems more visible, so that they can be fixed! And if grouping is done, as I proposed, then "Freebase identifier" and "Commons category" are moved into a section apart from instanceOf and subClassOf anyway. Andrea Shan (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Emw - I moved several P133 to P279 and asked User:Ladsgroup to help with the task. User:Pasleim today deleted, what was scheduled for deletion since 27 September 2014. If parent_taxon would be fixed in the same manner, then subClassOf would be in the top 10. And for any item that is a class, the subClassOf-statement would be the first statement in the statements section, or if rdf:Type is present it would be the second statement. No more random placement, sometimes even at the bottom of a long list. Maybe that would also help User:Bennylin a little bit - no customized sorting, but at least no random order anymore. Andrea Shan (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

duplicate item.... can't merge or correct....[edit]


It seems that Q10111548 (Q14566211) and Q10111548 (Q10111548) have the exact same 2 links, but I cannot merge them or remove links. Could someone help me, please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Merged. Thanks for reporting. I first removed the links from Q14566211 and then merged them using the merge tool. --Stryn (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Stryn ; I did try the exact same thing, but I could not save after removing the links, so it was impossible to merge :(
I found 4 other items with same ja and zh links and could merge them :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin, Stryn: See WD:TD.--GZWDer (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
? --Stryn (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
well, I have corrected about 60 of those I found when trying to tag items as Wikimedia category page (Q4167836), but I really don't intend to work on more than 5 thousand items by hand :D - do you think a bot could do something, now that at least, a list exists, even if not complete ?
also I had a thought : would it be possible to modify the merge tool to accept merging when conflicting items (2 lins in the same language) are in fact the same ? it would be much simpler to correct these dupes... for now, the new GUI is really making it even harder than before, since the removal of a link is soooooooo looooooonnnnnnggggg… :( --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I recently had the same problem, that removing 2 duplicate siteling didn't work. When trying to remove one, the UI complained that the other was already used. How did you fix that, @Stryn:? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, Tried another one now, and it works :). Lymantria (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Enable global AbuseFilter on Wikidata[edit]

Hey Everyone, today I had a discussion with Lydia about the spam we see over here, mostly in talk namespaces. Because of that I decided to upload a patch which will enable global AbuseFilters on Wikidata, like they are on most other Wikis. I looked over the global filters which are enabled right now and I'm reasonably sure there wont be any side effects with entity namespaces. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


I can not understand. I am out. Luizpuodzius (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Relations should not be added arbitrarily : there is really a need for domain and range[edit]

It is really strange to be able to add population property to a person !! how does this make sense?

Ashraf, in one sense it is indeed strange to be able to add population (P1082) to an item about a person. However, in practice, that rarely occurs -- a query for items that are instances of human (or person) and have population claims currently shows 1 such occurrence.
The Wikidata development team has said that hard validation constraints -- like preventing users from entering population claims in items with "instance of human" claims -- will not be implemented. I think that's wise. Wikidata bots do a pretty good job of flagging questionable claims based on restriction templates found in property talk pages, e.g. Property_talk:P1050. But even then, sometimes the constraints are too restrictive. Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P1050#Type_Q215627 reports Goze (Q502323) as a violation, as the item has the claim "medical condition: blindness" but not "instance of: human" claim. But looking in the Wikipedia article Goze, we see that Goze are "visually-impaired Japanese women". Can Goze, which is a class of human and not a particular instance of human, validly have a medical condition claim? I think so. Having hard validation constraints would prevent that reasonable statement.
Finally, as a matter of syntax, I'm not sure that domain and range would be the right way to implement hard validation constraints. Those properties would ideally have the semantics of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range. Thus, stating "population domain place" and "John Doe population 2" would entail that John Doe is a place, not that the population statement is incorrect. See for more.
I agree that we need domain and range. They're coming; see Wikidata:Project_chat#Preparing_for_.22statements_on_properties.22. But it's important that we interpret them as they're defined by Semantic Web standards. Emw (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata where the various property properties are being discussed. There is a real problem with defining Domain and Range in accordance with standards: these define Domain and Range in terms of Classes. This means these aree useless in defining constraints on numeric, date, or text values. It also means that we cannot define the range using properties other than instance of/subclass of. I think definition of the domain and range need to be more like a query. Filceolaire (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Extortion or Blackmailing?[edit]

Can someone please me to clearify the distinction between extortion (Q6452087) and blackmail (Q34284) and sort out the messy interwiki? /ℇsquilo 19:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and I did not unterstand languages. I have looked at de,fr,en,sv: Google translator says that fr and de Chantage blackmail (Q34284) subclass of (P279) extortion (Q6452087) Chantage is Extortion with a distrubution of informations about the victim of the Chantage. w:sv:Utpressning seems to be similar to fr/de Chantage, but I am not sure if the sv:Utpressing meanings includes extortion with other harm like violence too. blackmail (Q34284) seems to be splitted. I guess en Blackmail ist not equal to fr/de Chantage. --Diwas (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC) PS: w:it:Estorsione blackmail (Q34284) seems maybe similar to en:blackmail blackmail (Q34284) or to en/de/fr/... extortion (Q6452087) but not to fr/de chantage blackmail (Q34284).
That's a general problem with legal terms, as legal definitions of offenses vary a lot between countries, and so do legal terms. What is covered by one legal term in one country could be split into two distinct offenses in another. So in many cases, it might have been okay to link articles to articles about similar legal concepts in other languages, but from a database POV, it's probably not a really good idea to try to somehow stuff them all into one data set. -- 05:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


how link to Wikibooks in Wikidata?. Cannot use books: --Lagoset (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoset: [[b:]]? Or do you mean sitelinks? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: So this? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
For example, in cannot add a wikibook link easily (in "Pages on other sites linked to this item"). --Lagoset (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikibooks has not been added yet as a supported project. This means you can't maintain its language links here on Wikidata yet. It will be possible in the future. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Any plan when will be Wikidata on next project(s)? JAn Dudík (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes :) Announcement today or tomorrow. (ie as soon as I get to it given today is super busy...) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Constraint on all items of a given type[edit]

Is it possible to specify a constraint like the following one?

If an item is of type taxon (Q16521), then it should have the property taxon name (P225).

Petr Matas 06:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Intersection properties[edit]

I've just spotted Iranian association football player (Q18542787) (being used with occupation (P106)), which appears to be a combination of "nationality: Iranian" and "occupation: footballer". I'm not sure if we have a formal position on this kind of "intersection property", but I'd have thought we would want to do this by applying both properties separately. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(and @علیرضا:, who created this} Andrew Gray (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, we do have "American football player"  ;) --- Jura 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No nationality though. "American football player" refers to someone that plays American football (Q41323), regardless of nationality. ;) --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm against such properties and items. Separate the nationality from the occupation. Filceolaire (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Pasleim (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Casper Tinan (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
+1 --Haplology (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The above voters are all against certain items that are classes? What generic logic is behind that? If a Wikipedia has a page for such an item that you don't want, will the Wikipedia have to delete the page? Or will they have to manage it without easy interwiki etc? Do you mean to disallow more than one subClassOf statement on an item page? Andrea Shan (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andrea Shan: In my opinion classes that are too specific, will become unusable. Think about how we could subclass of (P279) a dog: (1) hairy four-legged mammal (2) hemerophile barking mammal. How would we ever get consensus for such classes across 270 languages? And even a 100 word long label would still be missing things that all dogs have in common. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how Iranian association football player (Q18542787) passes the threshold for notability. Andrea's objection is somewhat valid if the item has a sitelink to Wikipedia but this is not the case here. Pichpich (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a good way of solving it. Maybe User:علیرضا can respond here? This is probably just a misunderstanding. Also pinging Amir. Multichill (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I send him an e-mail and asked him to participate in this discussion. Amir (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this would be a nice "Commons category", but occupations and nationalities should be separated here, except when the nationality implies a specific kind of occupation (i.e. if Iranian football was different from what most people (apart from Americans) call "football") - Is it the case here ? — Note : I added a FR label to this item, but wondered about it when I found it… had no time to submit it to Project chat at the time ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Glossary is terrible[edit]

Wikidata:Glossary is terrible. It is far to technical. it requires a reader to wade through an introduction to semantic data in highly technical language, none of which is explained. before it even gets to the terms used on Wikidata. Even then the terms used are too technical and are not linked to explanations of those terms. It needs a complete rewrite with the Introduction to Structured Data moved to a separate page and the wikidata terms explained in simple language.

Unfortunately I cannot get started on this as , for some reason, all the edit tags on the paragraphs on this page have disappeared leaving only the edit button for the whole page. Anyone know why that is? Filceolaire (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't split the information between different pages because this will be a mess to keep everything up-to-date. Better separate the information of each topic into two paragraphs with one containing the basic information and the second more detailed and technical ones. Snipre (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Also bear in mind, that the page is at least partially translated to 10+ languages, so every change must be reflected in these languages. --Jklamo (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Jklamo Snipre, the problem isn't that the terms have basic and technical information. The problem is that the page starts with a bunch of definitions for terms which aren't used on Wikidata. If these are to be kept on the same page then they need to be moved to the end, after the definitions for wikidata terms. Filceolaire (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea why I can edit the whole page but I can't edit individual sections? Filceolaire (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: I think that has something to do with the translation templates. Tobias1984 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The glossary is for explaining the somewhat weird Wikidata-lingo and give the necessary reference to rdf/linked data. It is not an introduction to Wikidata. If you want to make an introduction, make a new page. We do need a page that grounds our terms in other technical terms, if we can't use the glossary then we must make another similar page. It is although interesting that we already have diverged sufficiently to create problems for the devs, as there is now a bug about creating a new technical glossary. Jeblad (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What type of user Wikidata is really for?[edit]

I wonder what user is really targeted by Wikidata? I think that the user should have good knowledge representation understanding and technical background? how could we distinguish between wikipedia user and Wikidata user? Thanks!!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

What do you mean by user? Some people contribute while others are just reading the information. For many people Wikidata is even invisible, and working in the background of Wikipedia. -Tobias1984 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To my mind Users include:

  • those who develop the semantics of representing information here, commenting on rfcs and proposed properties
  • those who develop tools to identify items that need work using the constraints and other characteristics
  • those who develop bots to add info
  • those who add statements to the items by hand
  • those who work to get the sitelinks right.
  • those who create templates on the other wikis to use wikidata information
  • those who develop apps to reuse info from wikidata outside the WMF projects
  • those who read info from Wikidata where it appears in wikipedia articles, google searches or wherever else they see it.

Does that answer your question?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs).

@Filceolaire: I think on the contributing side at least a basic knowledge of databases id advantageous. And best case, an understanding of semantic ontology (something I myself don't claim to have). Working on the backend and the interfaces of the database of course needs real experts. I think very few people can just build up such knowledge in their free time. What people think about Wikidata, that don't have the before-mentioned knowledge, would surely be an interesting research topic. -Tobias1984 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Tobias1984, I disagree.With the right nudges - like the property suggester - I think anyone can edit here and they will pick up an understanding of how wikidata works as they go along. That is good for learners who just want to plunge in. Other learners prefer to read up before they start and we need to have Help pages where they can read-up before they start. Filceolaire (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Having separate properties for controlled ontologies is silly[edit]

On 10 March 2013 User:Tom Morris at Property talk:P107#Having separate properties for controlled ontologies is silly wrote a text regarding P107 with a headline that I am reusing for a text about P107.

Now we have 18 November 2014 and this silliness, which could be fixed within 24 hours still exits. Apart from that silliness, queries on the trees of the main types will fail for all items that have no instanceOf ("claim[107] and noclaim[31]", ~116 000 items), e.g. "claim[31:(tree[618123][][279])]" will miss all items that match "claim[107:618123] and noclaim[31]".

User:Ladsgroup seems to be very able and helpful with mass editing, his bot could copy all values from P107 to P31 if there is no P31. No information would be lost.

Getting more precise values for instanceOf is a task that can be unbundled, indeed, for editors that work manually it is easier to change the value of a property than to create a new statement, and delete another statement. For those people that use bots, altering instanceOf to a more specific value is very easy too. The easy way to go is

  • assigning any instanceOf and deleting P107 - within 24h
  • improving instanceOf - over time, improving this is also a general task for all items, e.g. claim[31:149621] which is "instanceOf=district" is found for 1000+ items - that looks like nonsense, all the items belong to a specific set

Most of the P107 have "geographical object" (Q618123) as value, there is

  • "claim[107:618123] with ~110 000 items
  • "claim[31:618123] with ~12 000 items

which is a further silliness that could be fixed within 24h. No wanted information is lost by having

  • "claim[107:618123] with 0 items
  • "claim[31:618123] with ~122 000 items

Andrea Shan (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding statements is easy, updating much harder. I rather see the work continue and once we have it drop below a reasonable level we can move the remaining clames. ~110 000 items is too much. I ran a bot the other day and I was able to match several 10.000's of these items. With a bit more effort we can probably match many more. So no, not yet. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Known issue with saving URL, Commons media or string statements[edit]

Hey folks. It is currently not possible to save statements with properties of type string, URL and Commons media. We're working on a fix and I hope we can deploy it within the next 24 hours. Sorry for the issue. We're tracking this at bugzilla:73582. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And the issue is fixed again. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

call for new Wikimedia Grant Advisory Committee members[edit]

Hi all,

cross-posting an announcement that might be of interest to some in the Wikidata community...

The Grant Advisory Committee (GAC) is currently seeking new members to help review and evaluate grant proposals in the Project and Event Grants Program (often known as just PEG). The deadline for applying is December 30th and requires you leave a brief statement of interest plus comments about your experience relevant to committee work here.

I am not aware of any past PEG proposals that have specifically been related to Wikidata but still think it'd be good to have Wikidata perspectives represented, especially if the need for adjudicating on a Wikidata-related grant happens in the near future!

For more information, see the GAC page on Meta-Wiki.

cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging - Why can some accounts via WiDaR make 85 hidden edits per minute and others not even 10 visible edits[edit]

1) 85 edits for time = 1:28 [3]. Edits are not visible at Special:RecentChanges.

2) At the same time, my WiDaR/AutoList2 window shows very fast

WiDaR error: As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action 
too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes.

and all WiDaR edits halt. They are not resumed, I have to manually re-start. All my edits show in Special:RecentChanges.

Andrea Shan (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because they are bots, and can bypass rate limits on editing. You can request approval of a bot if you have a set task that you want to use it for. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I have no bot, I just use WiDaR. Why place me in a group with spammers? Andrea Shan (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Kaldari (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you being addessed to as spamming, has to do with you being not autoconfirmed at the time. Lymantria (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Andrea Shan: I changed your user rights to confirmed. I don't know why you haven't yet get autoconfirmed. This should solve the spamming issue. On Special:RecentChanges all edits are visible but not by default. Click on "Show bots" to see really all changes. --Pasleim (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
This limit is to limit prossible damage by untested bots or spammers. Its easier to reset 200 edtits, than 10.000 if the bot or whatever programme has a malfunction or does something unexpected.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pasleim: - Thank you. @All - hopefully solved for me, but the software behavior does not look very welcoming. Maybe there could be a link to more detailed information in the block message. Andrea Shan (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging without creating a redirect is ugly[edit]

Why is it possible to merge items without creating a redirect? It leads to links pointing to one of the items becoming invalid and this is the result. Petr Matas 08:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We didn't get to implementing it yet. It is tracked at bugzilla:57745. If anyone wants to help with that please let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that I could update the relevant policies and maybe the gadget UI. Petr Matas 09:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Please fix this. Either delete or redirect the items, but don't leave them almost empty. --- Jura 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, someone else will have to continue with this, I have no more time for it now. Petr Matas 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that we should say "always redirect and optionally request deletion". Petr Matas 03:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Someone should continue by making the Merge gadget's "Create redirect" option permanently checked (disabled, non-clickable). Petr Matas 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
For merging of categories and recently created pages is delete useful. see Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
At least it should force to choose between merge and delete. With the current situation it can just leave a blank item (but since I do not see how the arguments for deletion make any sense, I would rather remove the delete option, that would be simple and foolproof). --Zolo (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting is ugly. I recently saw a false delete/merge, which I could not undo, because I have no undelete-rights. After deletion, normal users cannot see the original content. Andrea Shan (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

property examples[edit]

I've started adding examples like this to property talk pages in the example field, but if I am doing something wrong or if there is a better way to do this, then please say so now. Thanks --Haplology (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Formatting looks fine. Picking good examples for P162 seems hard though. --- Jura 06:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Community Liaison job openings at WMF[edit]

Hello! There are currently 2 job openings, and I thought someone here might be interested. Please pass it along, if you know someone who might be interested or a good fit for the Community Engagement team.


  • Community Liaison - this position will initially focus on working with the Flow team and also with the Editing (VisualEditor) team, mostly at non-English wikis; however, a lot of smaller or short-term tasks continually come up, so the WMF is particularly looking for someone who is adaptable, and with several diverse interests.
  • Community Liaison (Part time contract) - this part-time position will primarily focus on working with the Mobile teams, as the link explains.

If you need further information, feel free to send an email to, but do *not* use this address to apply. Thanks! m:User:Elitre (WMF) 11:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)



I'm still getting to grips with Wikidata so please excuse the question if it is a little basic, on all the entries I can find for places in Wales (same for Northern Ireland, England and Scotland) it says the country is the United Kingdom and that Wales (or Scotland or England or Northern Ireland) is the administrative territorial entity, perhaps this because of the unusual relationship of Wales being a country inside another country?

Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not object to using Wales as the country, and for Wales, list the UK as its country. I have not heard Northern Ireland be called a country, but certainly Scotland, Wales, and England are. But I doubt that anyone would want any place in England use England as the country. But before you go about making a lot of changes I would wait to see if anyone else has any opinion. 06:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It's interesting that Northern Ireland doesn't really have a type of administrative territorial entity (P132). Province is often used but Northern Ireland is only six of the counties in the nine counties of the traditional province of Ulster. Either way use is in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to say that the counties are in England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland and that England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are in the `United Kingdom so queries can find all these entities. Filceolaire (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Fwiw, on en.wn (where the distinction is whether or not, say, Category:Wales belongs to Category:News articles by country), for years United Kingdom was a country while England, Scotland etc. were not, which seemed reasonable enough, but then someone added those to News articles by country, which also seemed reasonable enough that it didn't seem appropriate to remove them again, so that's how things have stayed for several years now. (As something of an aside, this is one reason I have misgivings about Wikidata being used to drive structures on other sisters: decisions that would be a matter of convenience on other sisters become deep philosophical questions at Wikidata, which would then lead to those other sisters being asked to let their own local matters of convenience be driven by somebody else's reading of some locally immaterial deep philosophy.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
There are constituent country (Q1763527) for states like Wales or Netherlands (Q55), is this not enough? There are state of Germany (Q1221156) for states of Germany and U.S. state (Q35657) for states of USA. All this states have a measure of sovereignty. --Diwas (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

hermaphrodite (Q303479) vs hermaphroditism (Q16674976)[edit]

Are the same or is correct keep they divided? (I think the second) --ValterVB (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine they would need to be separate. For example, you could mark a person as 'instance of hermaphrodite', but not 'instance of hermaphroditism'. This is similar to the modiste (Q18199649)/hatmaking (Q663375) split. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Setting more specific claims - add or replace?[edit]

There are two cases where I want to set a more specific claim on items that already have a generic claim:

  1. For items marked as 'occupation actor' I want to set 'occupation film actor', 'occupation television actor', etc.
  2. For items marked as 'instance of album' I want to set 'instance of studio album', 'instance of live album', etc.

In these two cases, is it OK to just add the more specific claim, or should I replace the generic claim with the more specific claim? For actor, I'm thinking it might make sense to leave the generic claim, as actors are often several types of actors (voice, stage, tv, etc.) and I might not cover all the applicable cases with my more specific claim. According to WikidataQuery API there are several thousand items that include both actor and a more specific actor type (e.g. Charlie Chaplin), so this seems to already be a common pattern. Is is a bad pattern or OK? What about for albums? Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature[edit]

VE as BetaFeature.png

Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!

VisualEditor, a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a Beta Feature. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.

To access it, you will need to visit the Beta features page after the deployment and tick the box next to "VisualEditor". (If you have enabled the "Automatically enable all new beta features" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "VisualEditor language tool" that you can enable if you need it.

Then, you just have to click on "Edit" to start VisualEditor, or on "Edit source" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.

A guide was just published at so that you can learn how to support your community with this transition: please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at the main feedback page. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page here.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Please notice the correct direct link to access Beta features is this one. Thanks for your understanding! Elitre (WMF) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Elitre (WMF): Would I be right in presuming that this is for Wikidata/Project: and Help: namespace predominantly? I am guessing not for item (Q) and property (P) namespaces as they already have a customised editor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Not on items and properties. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

access to data for Commons coming on Dec 2nd[edit]

Hey folks :)

On request Commons is the next sister project to get access to the data on Wikidata. We'll be doing this on December 2nd. Please help update and expand c:Commons:Wikidata and Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons. Two caveats: 1) This is restricted to accessing data from the item connected to the page via sitelink. Access to data from arbitrary items will follow in January/February. 2) This is not for storing meta data about individual files. This will come later as part of the structured data on Commons project and be stored on Commons itself.

Looking forward to seeing what great things this will make possible again!

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting changes by a new user[edit]

A new user has made some edits to the labels and descriptions of two items, the changes to the English version being clearly wrong (as in: deleting the English label, description and alias of a property).

Can I (or someone else) just restore the previous versions (would be a matter of seconds)? Or do we have to investigate whether their changes to other language (zh and zh-tw) entries were valid? (I would be inclined to just restoring the previous versions of those two items, but I am not familiar enough with the WikiData community to know if that approach could be considered too aggressive/disrespectful.)

The Items are Property:P437 (distribution) and Q7889 (video game). -- KonB (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

These have been cleaned, though someone who knows zh languages would do well to review the edited entry Meteor Butterfly and a (Q10383333) and the new entry Master of Meteor Blades (Q18562459)  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Chrome bug?[edit]

Recently I haven't been able to save Statements when using Google Chrome for Mac OS. (Yosemite)

I can still save using Mozilla Firefox for Mac. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Invalid token?[edit]

I'm trying to link a Fywiki page to this item (Q18571952), but it doesn't take en continues to say it's an "invalid token", when it's clearly a normal Wikipedia page. What's an "invalid token" and why is this item refusing take the link? Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ieneach fan 'e Esk: I think it worked for me. Is that the correct page I added? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: Yes, it is. Thank you. So how did you do it? Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ieneach fan 'e Esk: Just the usual way: First language label and then the page. The Wikidata-software still has some weird behaviour sometimes. By the way: Is the infobox not supposed to say "Marmota kastschenkoi" at the bottom: fy:Wâldsteppemarmot. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: Well, thanks anyway. And yes, it is to say that, of course. That's what comes of copying an infobox from another page and then editing it, in stead of starting with an empty infobox. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Same problem in last days with Internet Explorer. Solution: close the browse and reopen it. No problem with Chrome. --ValterVB (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks. That's quite helpful. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ieneach fan 'e Esk: One more question :) - Why is the range map not on Commons? Can you transfer it? --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tobias1984:Because I made it myself, based on the map shown on this page. About transferring stuff to Commons... Yeah, I've had a bellyful of the copyright Gestapo that's active overthere, so I don't upload files to Commons anymore. But feel absolutely free to transfer the map yourself, if you want. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

populated places without P17[edit]

Please help to add P17 to these cases:

Yamaha5 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done about 400 Russian and Swedish islands. --- Jura 17:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
So, what country should Antarctic Peninsula (Q185605) be in? I would say none. /ℇsquilo 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Esquilo: "None" should probably the preferred statement. But there are also claims by UK, Chile, and Argentine which should probably be marked as deprecated statements, because the Antarctic Treaty is the only compromise that everybody accepts. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


It turns out that (DELETE ME) Maritime Mobile Service Identity (P1623) is a duplicate of MMSI (P587). Do we have a process for merging properties? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all: file a request at Wikidata:Properties for deletion. thx --Succu (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC) PS: (DELETE ME) Maritime Mobile Service Identity (P1623) is not used. --Succu (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding Statement to multiple items based on category/template[edit]

Can we add same statement to multiple articles based on category or template? For example, we see Category:Indian painters and add statements like Occupation =painter and instance of=human in every item related to article in that category. Wikidata Useful tool let it do for multiple statement but not for single statement and only for enwiki categories. Array Properties tool was requesting same to User:Legobot but now it seems not working. Is there any tool for doing this? Quickstatement tool is not helpful too. Can anyone create such tool. Please check array property tool for ideas. Regards -Nizil Shah (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. with autolist you can add by categoryYamaha5 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

sister city (P190) not at both items[edit]

Many couple items sister city (P190) are not at both items. for example at Taichung (Q245023) > San Pedro Sula (Q274584) is sister city but at San Pedro Sula (Q274584) doesn't mentioned Taichung (Q245023) as sister City.Yamaha5 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5: Magnus' tools are so great so this could be easy to solve. Here is the query and here is the tool. Open Notepad (Q274098) and copy the result to remove links, then copy this result to Microsoft Word (Q11261). Use find & replace (regex) with expressions [0-9]@.?(Q[0-9]@) → (Q[0-9]@)([!0-9])\2^tP190^t\1\3. Then move the text to the tool. You can start. Maybe the user could set a source like stated in (P248) and add it to the replace string – \2^tP190^t\1^tS248^t\1\3. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thats great! thanks. it works :) it was 4625 cases! Yamaha5 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates broken?[edit]

Has something broken our coordinates? I've seen several items, in the last 24 hours or so, whose coordinate location (P625) value is "0°0'NFF"N, 0°0'NFF"E", even though a value was entered. See, for example, this fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Wikidata:Contact the development team#Rendering of coordinates. Nobody has answered so far, there were some changes according to the latest status update. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)