Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.
Requests for deletions and merges can be made here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2015/04.

WikidataQuery question: Items which are humans[edit]

Using how can I say that I'm only looking for items which are humans? CLAIM[31:5] does not work since it covers no subclasses of humans. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

claim[31:5] shouldn't have any subclasses. --- Jura 20:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I mean in Wikidata there are many humans which don't have claim[31:5] because they have claim[31:?] where Q? is a subclass of Q5. Since thouse items are also humans I want to cover them with my query but I don't get them covered with claim[31:5] because is not concerned about subclasses. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a sample item? --- Jura 20:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You're looking for claim[31:(tree[5][][279])]. However, the difference to claim[31:5] is only marginal: 2,765,488 vs 2,767,718 items. --Pasleim (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The difference should be zero. --- Jura 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the items on this, there might actually be no humans among those items. --- Jura 21:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. What about them:[31:14943515]%20and%20claim[31:5]? I think this list should be empty because Q14943515 is a subclass of Q5. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No, because Q5 shouldn't have any subclasses. Besides, we don't want religious wars either. --- Jura 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
So you mean we should remove all subclasses of Q5? --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I think for the purpose of your query, you can assume that all humans have P31:Q5. At least, that's what many other tools do. --- Jura 10:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this is the marginal difference of 764 items. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Check it out with my link to Autolist above. --- Jura 22:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
322 of them are biblical character (Q14943515)'s, many of the others listed appear to be positions or figures from Greek Mythology. Popcorndude (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jobu0101: I wrote a template to write these queries parts : CLAIM[31:(Tree[5][][279])] ({{WDQ/instances|Q5}} gives this. It's usable with {{WDQ}} to generate a link to the WDQ corresponding query : {{WDQ|{{WDQ/instances|Q5}}|human instances}} gives human instances. TomT0m (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1: I don't see why there should not have any subclass. There is no reason and we are technically ready to allow this. It's just a matter of queries and WDQ and the future query engine of Wikidata will perfectly be able to handle this. This is a limittion with no real reasons. And absolutely not a community consensus. TomT0m (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. --- Jura 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: This ... does not seem like an answer, what do you mean exactly ? TomT0m (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
A human is a human is a human. When it is not possible to say that someone is a human he is not. There is absolutely no consensus to think otherwise. Thanks GerardM (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: There is consensus on Help:Basic membership properties, that's all I know. And instances of human is totally possible, I know that too. TomT0m (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You confuse the rule with possibly the exception. Either a human is a human or he is not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: I'm sorry, what ? TomT0m (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The rule is that on {{Item documentation}} there is a link to generate all instances of a class, and that if you look on Talk:Q5 there is a call, and that's true for any other class, to get all instances of that class. The exception is that to get all elements in a class you just query the P31/Qitem pair. TomT0m (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
GerardM "A human is a human unless he (or she) is not" or unless we are not sure. legendary character ( Q16934977) for instance is an entire class of people who might be historical or might be fictional or might be a bit of both. Filceolaire (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
How is a legendary person human. As far as I am concerned I do not care ... they certainly do not have a story that is verifiable in any way. So no. GerardM (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
GerardM, the point of that class is that the story is verifiable in some ways, but not in others, and so scholars sincerely disagree about whether the person actually existed or was fictional. Human history does not divide neatly into 100% agreement that a person named in an old source actually existed, and 100% agreement that the person never existed. How would you count the ones for which scholars disagree? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wilhelm Tell and James Bond are as far as I am concerned not human, they are fictional. They may share attributes of a human but that is it. I do not really like the argument "scholars do this or that"; either you do adopt an argument or I can safely disregard it. It is your argument or it is not yours to champion. GerardM (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: In that case, we can create two items, linked with fictional analog of (P1074) miga. One for the obviously fictional character that appears in fil we could hardly call biopics, and one for the disputed human, maybe with the
< the disputed human > instance of (P31) miga < human >
qualified with a statement disputed by (P1310) miga qualifier. TomT0m (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not an argument your giving.. So not really. An instance of should not be disputed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: I'm not trying to argument anything, I'm trying to help him solve his problem. As far as I know, the existence of some object is desputed in the real world, and we still have a NPOV policy. This is exactly what qualifiers are for, and even if the semantics is usually not standard in typing properties, I don't see in the name of what An instance of should not be disputed. Except your opinion. TomT0m (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a matter of making an qualification.. a human is "the animal" and a person (a higher level thingie) is whatever.. Now that makes sense to me.. suggesting that something mythical is an animal does not. GerardM (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: The point is that sometimes a person inspires legends. Then sometimes historian wonder if there is an historical figure who existed and inspired the fiction. They are separate entities, and the historical person may indeed have existed. If there is real arguments for this, I'm not opposed to give an item to the hypotetical historical figure, and use qualifier in the instance of (P31) statement as they are supposed to be used : to modify the sense of the claim. Significantly probably. <joke>And THIS IS NOT GIBBERISH.</joke> TomT0m (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
GerardM, I'm not thinking of William Tell. AFAICT, there are zero scholars who believe that William Tell existed. I'm thinking of cases more like Mother Shipton, whose purported posthumous publications are widely regarded as a hoax, but whose name may have been taken (was probably, but not definitely) from a real 16th century woman, with a birth and death date, who lived in a known place and did undertake the profession ascribed to her. What do you do with her? Is she a "human" or a "fictional character"? I like the idea of putting her in a subclass that identifies the uncertainty around her existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would agree with the comments above that we should not use subclasses of human; P31:Q5 works well and avoids the complexity of having to manage a hierarchy of subclasses to ensure we avoid any problems with animals, fictional people, etc being included. The approach we've settled on is simple, reliable, and easy to understand - let's not overcomplicate it if we don't have an absolutely pressing need to. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

An award celebration is NOT an award[edit]

Hoi, there are many items like "1992 Laurence Olivier Awards". They are in and off themselves not awards, they are celebrations. I want to aggressively change these.. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@GerardM: Q16154017 is still instance of award. Did you start already with your changes? --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Look also here. Maybe that helps you to find them (has to be done for each year). --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I started making changes one year at a time starting with 2015. GerardM (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, should be corrected. For some of them it might be useful to create a seperate item as a container for more properties that fit a whole series (e.g. Golden Globe Award ceremony (Q19311591) ) Michiel1972 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Original title[edit]

Moved to Property talk:P1476. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

candidate (P726)[edit]

candidate (P726) has a 96% constraint violation rate. It was created to be a relation of election=>person/party, but literally ~90% of the uses are person=>election. This bothers me. Is it time to propose an inverse property? --Haplology (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably better to redefine P726 to match its usage and create a new property for election=>person/party. Filceolaire (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, sounds reasonable. Still this situation with P726 is just too much for me to handle. There is no community, just imperious users and chaos. I can't handle this anymore.
@GerardM: you broke this property. At least take five minutes to at least note your changes, proposed and approved by the law unto himself who is Gerard, on the talk page. It's been more than a year since somebody else asked much more politely than I could have. Five minutes. Honestly. --Haplology (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it should be redefined. The current definition is something that it is useful to have property for, while the way the property is currently used is useless. I suggest having a bot mass-delete all constraint-violating statements. --Yair rand (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Haplology: If this is the way you want to approach me, you just failed completely except that I am annoyed so not interested. A minimum of politeness is the least you can do. GerardM (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In English, the meaning would be clearer if election=>person was called "had candidate(s)" and person=>election was called "candidate for". --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned up all the constraints violations. --Yair rand (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

subclass issues[edit]

Similarly to the #thriller subclass problem above, female (Q6581072) claims to be a subclass of both female animal (Q43445) (!) and human (Q5), which is impossible since Q43445 and Q5 should not intersect. IMO, the real hierarchy here is female animal (Q43445) is a subclass of female (Q6581072) (not the other way around!), but then some "non-fictional female" as subclass of both female (Q6581072) and human (Q5), and then a "fictional female" as the subclass of female (Q6581072) that is the complement of "non-fictional female". Currently, this incorrect categorization allows the claim that all Muses (Q66016) (and any similar concepts) are humans... (one of the reasons for the existence of the issue discussed at #WikidataQuery question: Items which are humans) -- Jokes_Free4Me (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Item labels tend to be changed in some languages (but not all) and hierarchies transformed. Things that may have made sense at some point get lost. In general, it's probably not worth bothering too much with the subclass stuff. --- Jura 11:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Rather the opposite: I believe that the subclass hierarchy is essential, because it is language-independent. Build a strong hierarchy and keep an eye on it afterwards, as users have a tendency to "fix it" to fit labels from their own language. It would be useful to either warn or automatically keep track of changes to the values of subclass of (P279) or instance of (P31) on items - users should be made aware of the impact of such changes, that, better yet, should be approved by other users. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 13:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that "Q43445 and Q5 should not intersect". While female (Q6581072) is used for human women and female animal (Q43445) is only used for non-humans that doesn't mean that Q43445 doesn't include humans; it just means that female (Q6581072) is a more specific subclass of female animal (Q43445) - specifically female creatures who are human. If female (Q6581072) is defined like that then it is a subclass of both female animal (Q43445) (!) and human (Q5). Women are, after all, female animals. Filceolaire (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that we are overusing and misusing subclass of (P279) quite frequently. For example, in female (Q6581072) the description states "human who is female", but there is a claim "instance of sex of humans" and a claim "subclass of gender" and a claim "subclass of human". We don't say "Marie Curie instance of Female", we say "Marie Curie sex or gender Female". female (Q6581072) conflates (at least) two notions: female as a human gender or sex, and female as the set of all humans that are regarded to have this gender. The latter should be represented by a query, and we should clean up the identity of the item. --Denny (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, again: we should not use subclass of (P279) so often. Using this property is almost always an information loss, and we should use it only in the use cases where it actually makes sense. We don't say "Polish subclass of Human and Marie Curie instance of Polish". We have more appropriate properties to express that. --Denny (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Denny we don't say 'Polish' at all. We say 'country of citizenship:Poland'. If we did have an item for 'Polish' representing the class of people with 'country of citizenship:Poland' then the appropriate statements for that item would be 'instance of:nationality' and 'subclass of:human'. There is not much else you could say about that item.
There are a number of strange wikipedia articles about groups of things or people. If we have Wikidata items for those Wikipedia articles then about the only useful statement we can make about that item is that it is a subclass of something - even though that item is unlikely to be used as the target for an 'instance of' statement. Are you saying we shouldn't make that 'subclass of' statement and just leave those items with no statements? Filceolaire (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
A more general issue is that we have lots of wikipedia articles called 'list of mayors of Foo' which we sitelink to wikidata items called 'mayor of Foo' with statements 'instance of:political office', 'instance of:wikimedia list article' 'subclass of:mayor' and which we use as the target of 'position held:mayor of Foo' statements on other items. If we did not have these 'list of' articles then we might well have changed these statements to 'position held:mayor' qualifier 'of:Foo' but we do have these items so we use them. At some point in the future we may well be able to replace the wikipedia 'list of mayors of Foo' articles with lists automatically generated by wikidata queries but we are not there yet. Filceolaire (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Denny: Filceolaire's right, our item are often blurry. But I think a feature like, when queries are ready, on an item page showing the, let's call them inferred classes, as for example the list of queries for which the item is in the set of result when this is possible, could help a lot to reduce the redundancy while helping us to clear the concepts. After all, classes or sets with intensional or extensional definitions are all in all just ... sets or classes. On the other hand, we may know that an object is an instance of some set while Wikidata do not have enough information yet to infer this. I think it could be very useful to manually asserting this fact in those cases to give a hint that something is probably missing in this case ... TomT0m (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire:, @TomT0m: That's my point. We don't say Polish at all! That is why I am surprised why we would want to say Marie Curie instance of Female. We have more appropriate properties for that, namely sex or gender (P21). --Denny (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

programatically determine relationship between two ID values[edit]

for instance, if I have Terrell Buckley (Q5571382) and Miami Dolphins (Q223243), which are related on Wikidata by the statement "member of sports team", can I use, for instance WikidataToolkit to query Wikidata, feed in those two entities and get back "member of sports team"? And if yes, how? S.Matthew English (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #154[edit]

Some notes[edit]

Hello Wikidata editors,

these days, I look a bit more into Wikidata since I always come here for the former interwiki links. There are some issues I noticed. Probably, most of them are already discussed and I dunno where.

1. For filmographies: If you add an actor to a film object, the movie is not immediately listet at the actors page. So, the movie needs to be added to the filmography of the actor, too, separately. However, it would be better if you can add an actor to the movie and then it will also appear on the actors page so that it is connected somehow. Same when you add a film to an actor object.
2. I think blood type would be suitable property for people. In Western countries, it might be not relevant and hard to figure out, however, in Asia, nearly all celebrities feature the blood type on their official websites.
3. Maybe, birthday by the lunar calender could be added. I just know, that for Korean actors, sometimes the birth dates differ from different websites. Often it is because on site show the lunar birthday, the other site the usual gregorian calender birthday.
4. On Wikipedia, there are some romanization templates (see Song Kang-ho for Korean). It would be good, if there was also a possibility to make a property for romanizations like McCune-Reischaer, Pinyin, Romaji etc.
5. For German dates, they usually follow the "rule" that there is a dot after the day, e.g. 1. Januar 2015. However, here it is shown without dot: 1 Januar 2015.
6. I read that Wikidata will import Freebase. But isn't there a problem that Freebase has more properties for persons?
7. Perhaps, a property like "original title" would be good for films.
8. If you look at Q102098, Moon Geun-young, when your layout language is English, it shows for the property "surname" Wen. This can be quite confusing for some people, since there is no "Wen" in Moon Geun-young. Of course, Korean family names are based on Chinese characters, which is 文 here and spelled 문 in Korean (Mun), while in Pinyin (Chinese to latin), it is Wen. Maybe, a solution can be found to make it less confusing.

That's all. --Christian140 (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Christian140: Hello! I will try to answer you:
  1. We will propably have to wait until querries are enabled. (There is no "starred in a film" property.)
  2. You can propose the property at WD:Property proposal (person).
  3. I believe the developers are working on this. Everything related to time datatype is tracked at phab:T87764.
  4. As 2. (pinyin transliteration (P1721) exists.)
  5. As 3.
  6. I'm not sure here, something might have been discussed at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Freebase#Property mappings.
  7. title (P1476)
Any more questions or additional explanation? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I will look into it. I guess I will make a few property proposals then. And ah, yes, I think the cast of a film should also have something like a ranking, for example, lead role, supporting role... I will also check out the "title" property. Thx. --Christian140 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
For the blood type we already had a property proposal: Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/22#Blood Type --Pasleim (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Nooooo... Ahhh... Thank you :( I just made the proposal unfortunately. However, I think blood type will be proposed as long till it gets approval. When Wikidata becomes more relevant for Wikipedia and the editors of the Korean, Japanese or Chinese Wikipedia spend more time here, some will propose it again, I guess. --Christian140 (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Christian140: By the way, there are some issues with the title (P1476) property. See Wikidata:Project_chat#Original_title. Maybe you can help us there to find a solution. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire, Jobu0101: There is no issues if the general rule of "one identified object = one item" is followed. The main problem is that people are lazy and don't provide the necessary information to create and identify each object.
  • Use title (P1476) only for the title of the specific object described by the item.
  • Several uses of title (P1476) means that the object was edited/distributed from the beginning in different versions.
  • Each time a translation is done and a specific edition is released a new item has to be created.
This rule solves most of the cases. I still wait for the description of the special cases which can't follow the above situation. And better use the talk page of the property to discuss its use: the project chat doesn't allow a good storage and easy access to future questions and solutions. Snipre (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd guess that blood type would violate privacy laws in a lot of places. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think it is more complicated. Read for example Christian140's comment there. --Jobu0101 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Using nickname as a qualifier for someone's nickname in an organisation[edit]

Hi all, I want to use nickname (P1449) as a qualifier for the property member of (P463) but now it is just for entities? Can this be expanded to include people? I placed the same question on the talkpage of the property. Thx Jane023 (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As the property has a statement instance of (P31) Wikidata property for items about people (Q18608871) I assume it can be used for people as well. -- Bene* talk 12:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Jane023 (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Jane023 Can you give a specific example of where you want to use it? If you are using it as a qualifier to member of (P463) I am guessing it is a nickname for members of that organisation rather than a nickname for the individual the statement is about. If that is the case then I think you shouldn't use nickname (P1449) as a qualifier for the property member of (P463) - it isn't specific to that person. The statement using nickname (P1449) should be on the item about the organisation instead. at least that is my opinion. Filceolaire (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I put the example on the talk page of nickname (P1449) along with an example and I think we should continue discussion there. Jane023 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Chinese question[edit]

Is there an equivalent of Wikipedia:WikiProject China (Q10816953) or Wikipedia:Proposed mergers (Q6596462) in Wikidata ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

There are some proposed merges: User:Byrial/countrymerge, User:Byrial/numbermerge, User:Ivan A. Krestinin/To merge, User:Pasleim/projectmerge. --Infovarius (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "内蒙古语言" ? Are w:zh:Category:内蒙古语言 and Category:Languages of Inner Mongolia (Q13328614) related? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

内蒙古语言 literally means "Inner Mongolian Languages". the zh category and fr are related.--KTo288 (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody change Q9536576 into redirect to Q13328614 ? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "云南语言" ? Are w:zh:Category:云南语言 and Category:Languages of Yunnan (Q13328628) related? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the meaning of "长江水系" ? Are w:zh:Category:长江水系 and Category:Chang Jiang Basin (Q8956112) related? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

French-Engish translation needed[edit]

Please would someone kindly translate the short French description at Wikidata:Property proposal/References#catholic-hierarchy diocese id into English? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it isnot a description, but a motiv. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Until your recent edit it was in the |description= parameter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone help with translation, please? Google Translate is no use, in this case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mess with japanese foster parents[edit]

Yesterday someone merged Q11666901 (adoptive parents) with parents-in-law (Q15977638) probably fooled by the "in-law" in the english description. Now User:KrBot has "fixed" this redirect when used as qualifier for type of kinship (P1039) (obviously for japanese people only, the actual number of items is quite manageable). Unfortunately I cannot understand what relation relly was intendend in the japanese items (foster parent/father/mother? adoptive parent/father/mother?) and the perhaps the items in question would have to be fixed anyway to match the correct gender of the target person. -- Gymel (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this particular case, but I left a note on the bot's talk page to stop "solving" redirects as that makes it impossible to undo a wrong merge+redirect. -- Bene* talk 13:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record [1] currently yields 31 items which should exactly be those in question. 27 of them are male, 4 femaleAll of the target items are of male sex thus I suspect the users redirect was not only to the wrong term (but we don't have items yet for adoptive parents/father/mother?) but also the original usage has been categorically wrong (should have been father/mother instead of parents) or the japanese term is indifferent of gender). Can someone forward this request to some japanese-language corner in order to find out what the original Q11666901 really was about (almost all items seem to concern members of the nobility thus a concept may be involved which cannot be mapped at all to adoption or fostering...) -- Gymel (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The Japanese concept of ja:義親 is described in the Chinese Wikipedia article (zh:乾親) thus:-
Basically for the Japanese 義親 are all kin not directly related by blood, this includes parents in law and brothers and sisters in law, adopted/foster children, adoptive/foster parents and siblings, and oath/sworn brothers.--KTo288 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So if the person doing the merge was Japanese, according to his/her worldview, adoptive parents are exactly the same as parents in law and the merge is correct.--KTo288 (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@KTo288: That means would hold (or is 義親 always a single person)? -- Gymel (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gymel: as I understand it, yes would be true in general all, but of course in specific cases the ties would be between individuals.--KTo288 (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the discussion I reverted the merge of nominal kinship (Q11666901) with parents-in-law (Q15977638) and the subsequent changes in qualifiers which now again can be found by WDQ with their old qualifier item. -- Gymel (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Same label in many languages[edit]

An examination of the history of GrassBase (Q19816560), which I created recently with the English-language label "Grassbase", shows others adding the same label in French and German. Indeed, I would expect the label, which is a proper noun, to be the same in every language using the western alphabet.

Would it be possible to have an option when setting a label, to do so for every such language? Individual instances could always be changed later, if necessary.

Or perhaps someone might make a tool to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Add importScript( 'User:Jitrixis/nameGuzzler.js' ); to your personal JavaScript and copy this page to your own namespace. That would do the job. A link would appear in the tools menu. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That looks useful I'm not sure what the "autoselct" option is supposed to do. Also, is there a method to select only languages which are RTL, and/ or use the western alphabet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
The autoselect fetches the list from your namespace. I think it contains all western languages. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: It not working - not doing anything - for me :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: Are you able to advise, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: can you be more specific, please? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: I click on the "autoselect" link and - literally - nothing happens. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I already have this, will that do? --Magnus Manske (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Thank you. Is there any documentation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: that seems very interesting, but how do you use it to edit, please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Combining Q112865 & Q15149663 (Mexican States)[edit]

Can these items (Q112865 and Q15149663) combine in some way? Maybe they are totally different items but there is something wrong. Both are marked in Finnish with the same item "Meksikon osavaltiot" (in English States of Mexico). Q112865: en:Administrative_divisions_of_Mexico is pretty much the same as Q15149663: fi:Meksikon_osavaltiot. I am sorry fragmentation of discussion in many places: Talk:Q112865 and Requests for comment/Adopt Help:Classification as an official help page (Deleted comment). --Raid5 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC) edit. --Raid5 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Raid5: Depending on how much an individual article at administrative territorial entity of Mexico (Q112865) covers not only estados but also municipios as second-order subdivisions it could or could not be moved over to state of Mexico (Q15149663). Looking at the associated "main categories" Category:States of Mexico (Q7146004) and Category:Subdivisions of Mexico (Q6418549) shows a clear overlap, i.e. many wikipedia instances have both categories. I think in the sense of "first-level-subdivisions only" vs. "any subdivision" holds and the items should not be merged. -- Gymel (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the current Finnish article has now fewer things. It would be difficult to understand if it would be made an another article and then the Finnish Wikipedia article would be equal to current English article. The result would be two new almost the same kind of articles. But you may be right, because you know better structure of Wikidata. Thank you. --Raid5 (talk) 13:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Raid5: Perhaps I did not correctly understand your question, but I let me rephrase my answer:
  1. There is no wikipedia which has two articles (one belonging to administrative territorial entity of Mexico (Q112865) and the other to state of Mexico (Q15149663)), so technically the items could be merged
  2. however the different (and definitively non mergeable) "main categories" for the two items stress the fact, that "primary subdivisions" (i.e. states) and "any subdivision" (i.e. states and municipalities) are distinct topics and therefore the wikidata items should not be merged.
  3. current assignment of individual wikipedia articles to the two items seems to be in alignment with the article titles: "states" here, "subdivisions" there. Deep inspection of each single wikipedia article might yield a better assignment (e.g. an article named "subdivisions" which in fact only deals with the primary subdivisions should be transferred to the "states" item. Or the other way round, an article named "states" which also explains in length how the states are subdivided should move to the "subdivisions" item).
  4. Please feel free to move fi:Meksikon osavaltiot to that item where it fits best based on its content (Hm. I gather that it is not an article at all but just a list or table...). It would be nice then if you also could set the finnish labels for the two items in such a way, that confusion is reduced (thus the acutal article title "Meksikon osavaltiot" should be kept in mind). -- Gymel (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gymel: Hi, we're having a word in the RfC about administrative division classification (For example, an item type of administrative division in Mexico, with
< Mexican state > instance of (P31) miga < type of administrative division in Mexico >
is beein discussed, consistently with the framework I propose in Help:Classification. This could help sorting this kind of items out correctly, so if we could read and leave a comment on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Adopt Help:Classification as an official help page I would be pleased :) TomT0m (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gymel: Yes I know there is no two articles about that. I meant if, then they would be almost the same. I will not argue the matter (because I don't know much about structure of Wikidata). I am trying to study the things of which you wrote and perhaps then I understand better. --Raid5 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Raid5 No. 17:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Hoi, People like Razan Zaitouneh disappeared. They are probably dead. I have no idea how to do justice to such a situation. When you consider Iraq and Syria, there are probably many people who disappeared without a trace.. What to do ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe significant event (P793)  unexplained disappearance (Q7884274)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, and qualified with point in time (P585) ---- LaddΩ chat ;) 21:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
There is date of disappearance (P746) for this. --- Jura 01:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks :) GerardM (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it's such a shame that we've got a lot of properties, but some of them are not being used a lot. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to search/find properties, mostly I "discover" suited properties on related items or by brute force. Better search suggestions welcome. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I would actually go further, and say property/class relationships should not only be accessible at the property end, in the talk page with constraint and documentation templates, or opaquely through a search or suggestion algorithm. You should be able to go to missing person (Q388505) and be able to find date of disappearance (P746) through there. Perhaps with the work being done to express property constraints as statements, this could also be addressed. Dancter (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"Lua error: not enough memory"[edit]

When I try to view Wikidata:Property proposal/all (all property proposals), the items after 16.12 display "Lua error: not enough memory" all over the place... Probably there's a better place to report this, but I'm still not really familiar with the bug tracking platforms, so I hope someone will forward this to the right place :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That's usual on such large pages, no quick fix for that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg


I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at-

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

gender question (message moved)[edit]

Please unify the subclassing of "male" and "female"[edit]

(moved from wd:dev)

"Female" (as a gender) is a subclass of "human". "Male" is not. The correctness of this subclassing is debated, but what it is urgent is that "male" and "female" get the same treatment. Presently, if you look for pages with gender human (where the gender is closed transitively by superclass) you get only women.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vigna (talk • contribs).

I removed "subclass: human" from female. It makes more sense to list male and female as instances of "gender", and for "gender" to hold the relationship with human, IMO. In theory almost any property that can be applied to humans could be listed as a subclass of human: nationalities, occupations, races, genders, etc. I think that would be overloading the intended use of "subclass" though. Kaldari (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Vigna, Kaldari I have added 'subclass of:human' to both 'male' and 'female' as these two items are both restricted to be used for describing humans and are not used for male and female non-humans (use 'male animal' and 'female animal' instead for non-humans. See this discussion). 'Gender' is not a subclass of human. A 'gender' is not a human. OK? Filceolaire (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: Not the good solution: we have to have a similar solution for male human and male animal. Then we have a problem with fictional character: Sarek (Q2712069), Vulcan father of Spock in Star Trek universe, is defined as male but this is not a human.
We have to have a general way to classify these items. Snipre (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Property Sarek (Q2712069) Bugs Bunny (Q183102) James T. Kirk (Q16311) Barack Obama (Q76)
sex or gender (P21) male (Q6581097) male (Q6581097) male (Q6581097) male (Q6581097)
Race/Species Vulcan (Q6497384) Rabbit? human (Q5) human (Q5)
Real/fictional fictional fictional fictional real
ethnic group (P172) - - - African American (Q49085),Irish American (Q1075293)
Snipre (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the way that I see the question. We have these animals in the zoo:

Animals in the zoo
Animal Male Female
Elephants Male elephants Female elephants
Tigers Male tigers Female tigers
Bears Male bears Female bears

We want to be able to subdivide the animals, because sex matters to the zoo's breeding program. We also want to be able to make bigger groups (all the males, regardless of species; all the tigers, regardless of sex).

How would we represent this? Do we need to have add "elephant", "male" and "male elephant" to any given instance of a male elephant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: I would understand a
< man > subclass of (P279) miga < human >
< woman > subclass of (P279) miga < human >
with the man and woman defined as human with a female sex or genre, for example, either by a constraint or a query, I don't care. On the spirit of the Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_Help:Classification_as_an_official_help_page, I'm not sure how to define the range of the sex or genre property thought :) it seems that the facts here are the person has a XY sexual chromosom pair and feel like a man. Then the genre would be a feeling also ... Maybe a property feels like could be an alias for genre. And the domain would be man or woman, and
< man > instance of (P31) miga < sexual identity >
< woman > instance of (P31) miga < sexual identity >
. This is the best I can do /o\. TomT0m (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Addition: with of course the range of the feel like property would be <sexual identity>, and its domain human. TomT0m (talk)
TomT0m There was a long discussion (see Property_talk:P21) about whether we need separate properties for sex and for gender and what exactly is meant by saying that someone has male or female sex. The conclusion was that for the vast majority of the people on wikidata we have no idea what their biological sex is (in any of the 5 different things that make up biological sex - see en:intersex. We don't even know their gender identity. All we know is their gender expression - how they present themselves. It was agreed that is sufficient for property sex or gender (P21) since if we require anything more specific then we would have to leave this statement blank for most humans on wikidata. In the few cases where we do know more then this additional knowledge can be expressed in qualifiers.
Apart from using wikidata as general playground and blurring the fragile distinctions between sex and gender, human and homo sapiens, organism and person, being and character and whatsnot there is also another serious problem in connection with statements : Many wikipedia articles linked to female animal (Q43445) deal with female organisms, i.e. also include female plants. Probably also with the male counterpart... -- Gymel (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Gymel I agree that sex or gender (P21) blurs the distinction between sex and gender. It is designed that way to reflect our lack of knowledge. For most people on wikidata we know that their gender presentation (how they dress etc.) probably reflects their biological sex. We also know that for some people their gender presentation does not match their biological sex but we have no idea which people this is true for. sex or gender (P21) reflects that ambiguity.
I agree that female animal (Q43445) should probably be renamed "female organism" to reflect how it is used. Filceolaire (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Having a dedicated property sex or gender (P21) in addition to instance of (P31) is a way to deal with ambiguities. But IMHO not connecting everything subclass of (P279)-wise ad ultimo is the more important way: "Male" is an appropriate attribute for Spock's father even if we do not know anything about Biology and Society of Vulcan to make more specific claims like "Vulcan Male" one may be tempted to use with instance of (P31). And to keep it this ambiguous way we must be very conservative and especially refrain making male (Q6581097) a subclass of anything crossing the bridge from the appropriately abstract person (Q215627) to human (Q5) or real terrestrial life forms. I know that subclasses in wikipedia are not prescriptive but making any male a subclass of human (Q5) may not make them humans but at least spills terrestrical biology onto poor Sarek and Bugs Bunny. Therefore I regard male (Q6581097) having subclass of (P279)s at all as a high risk for future problems. -- Gymel (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
In other words, male (Q6581097) is not a class of organism, it's a property we attach to organisms. Woman, on the other hand, is a class of human who have a property of calling their sex "female". Of course male and female properties make sense only for organisms who reproducts sexually. TomT0m (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
male and female can be attributed by extension to any individual (probably because our "wiring" has an antropomorphic or antorpocentric bias). Thus even the smalles hint (me creating a story about the adventures of two peculiarly shaped stones named "Peter" and "Mary", becoming internet celebrities and rising to wikidata notability within weeks...) may result in an (certainly justified!) assignment of sex or gender (P21). It very much depends on your definition of "organism" whether I can agree with your remark. I would say anything classified as individual (Q795052) is a possible candidate for carrying sex or gender (P21) (not always male or female of course), but I'm not sure wether every plant in my garden involved in sexual reproduction (Q182353) qualifies as individual (Q795052) (but it is an instance of organism (Q7239) or - since I just invented my garden - a fictional analogue of that). -- Gymel (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gymel: Yes, I'm the one who proposed the fictional analog of (P1074) miga property, and the whole point was to separate the fictional and real classes :) Of course, an organism here is a real one, it is pretty much well defined I guess. An organism with sexual reproduction is also, maybe with weird exceptions as always in biology (the rule in biology is that there is exceptions to the rule). If we apply the sex or gender (P21) miga property to a fictional character, of course this is a whole different thing. Way less important though :) There is a lot more possibilities and less constraints in fiction :) What we need in Wikidata is to keep the hierarchies separate to be able to apply constraints only to real stuffs, and live more freedom in fictional entities. Of course man and woman are subclasses of real world humans item. This does the trick. TomT0m (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: sex or gender (P21) miga is expanded to genre (P136) but I take it you did mean sex or gender (P21) (same word in french...)? My impression of the biological nomenclature in wikidata is that we have the (a) complete taxonomic tree here but it is quite insulated, e.g. not using subclass of (P279) but the dedicated parent taxon (P171) to model the hierarchical relation. And - most important - these items do not break out of the system they belong to by using excessive instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279). A comparable practice should be implemented for physical objects with some reality, this will be of course much harder to achieve and I'm not sure wether the border should be drawn between "real" and "fictional" or rather between "intrinsic" and "extrinsic" attributes or whatever distinction may be appropriate to put e.g. the biological and antropological aspects of human beings on one side and the social ones of "personality" on the other. Properties pertaining (mostly) to one or the other side then should have a range of items which in turn usually do not cross the border again with their P31/P279 chain. As a consequence one would have either a companion attribute for sex or gender (P21) reserved for objects where you cannot derive sex or gender from inspection or interview, or fictional analougues of male and female for use in sex or gender (P21) or - this I would prefer - simply accept that sex or gender (P21) applies to both sides of the divide and therefore the range elements male (Q6581097) and female (Q6581072) should only be linked via P31/P279 to very abstract concepts, avoiding to create a closer connection with items having a definite location on one side of the divide. For me is probably all what can be said about female in the context of wikidata, and all other current values of P31 and P279 for that item I deem questionable. -- Gymel (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gymel: My vision of instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) is exposed in Help:Classification. In this vision, there is no problem into classifying species and other clades with subclass of (P279) and instance of (P31), as a clade describes a set of organism, and a clade who is a child taxon of this clade is a subset of this set of organisms. clades like Kingdom can be marked
< animal > instance of (P31) miga < kingdom >
, kingdom beeing a metaclass. Other examples and pitfalls of not using metaclasses are describes in the RfC Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_Help:Classification_as_an_official_help_page.
Of course the fictional analog of solution and disjoint tree allows to use the sex or gender (P21) miga on fictional item, that's the whole point. We know it has a real world semantic only when applied to an object who is an instance of a subclass of the real object class.
For me is probably all what can be said about female in the context of wikidata Always in the spirit of Help:Classification, I try to find tokens in the real world to make things precise, at least as an exercise :) And I think that someone saying I feel like a woman, meaning it, is a manifestation of a real feeling, and that (of course Wikidata will not be complete enough to be able to query for this) this validates the model, we could even say somethings like feeling like a woman is a subclass of feeling and an instance of Q48264, which validates the model and make me concur with you. And tools like Help:Classification helps us think (if you agree, please say that on the RfC :) TomT0m (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Does your classification give some rules about the use of classes like fictional human (Q15632617) instead of using 2 "instance of" with human (Q5) and fictional character (Q95074) ? The examples above indicate that if we want to use fictional human (Q15632617) we have to create similar classes like "fictional Vulcan" and "fictional rabbit" to keep a consistency. Snipre (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: Fiction Vulcan is useless, Vulcan is fictionnal by essence :) fictional human (Q15632617) should not be linked with human (Q5) (View with Reasonator) with instance of (P31), but with fictional analog of (P1074) miga. Otherwise if we query something like this generic query to retrieve all instances of a class, James Bond would show up. For me, James Bond is a fictional character, not a human, this is very different. But yes, Fiction Rabbit make sense, for Bugs Bunny for example. This does not mean that every class will have to have its counterpart, just when it is relevant. See Wikidata:WikiProject Fictional universes. TomT0m (talk) 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Addition For the Vulcan,
< Vucan > subclass of (P279) miga < fiction person >
make sense. It's then in the subclass tree of fictional entities. TomT0m (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical specifications for movies - How to manage them?[edit]

Someone can help here?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ValterVB (talk • contribs). TomT0m (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Page status indicator[edit]

Full revert of a recent change for the page status indicators, s.v.p., the remaining width is far too small for ICBM coordinates working everywhere incl. here before the change. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't have geohack here, I thought... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you please link to some item or page where they are a problem? Aude (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it was in the upper right of my user page here. Oddly, it is okay now. Could something I don't see with an AdBlocker push the page status indicator to the right? I had a line beak in what you can see now. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Marking adiministrative categories[edit]

I think that all Hidden_categories should be made instance of (P31) Wikimedia administration category page (Q15647814)

--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge problems[edit]

Can someone merge Rozin (Q19299407) with German Rozin (Q7375377) ? 18:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

→ ← Merged--Pasleim (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Badge needed for wikisource items... (Bis)[edit]


Last month, I posted this subject on the project Chat.

these are needed to easily see texts that have been completed from those that are still not "validated", since a bot imported thousands of links without bothering to ask about it on wikisources. The question of "how they would look locally is irrelevant, since these status are automatically managed by the system on wikisources. The important thing is to see them here on wikidata.

Wikisource participants seemed ok with the idea, could the badges please be created on Wikidata ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have created a task for this on phabricator. phab:T97014 We can probably use and for the badge icons, if that's ok. Aude (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Or is something else desired as the default on Wikidata? On each Wikisource, these can be customized (different icons used), but we need some default list of badges ("validated" and "corrected"?) and icons for those. Aude (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
those will be ok for me, but if other people prefer other wikisource icons, it will be ok, as long as they are symbolic of the "completeness" of the text. Thanks --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Opting out of Global sysops 2[edit]

A RFC has been started in regards to allowing global sysops to continue to perform admin actions on Wikidata. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Novalue in qualifiers/references[edit]

I'd like to discuss the usage of novalue in qualifiers or references. I've made a post to the list on it here: so I won't repeat it all here, the TLDR version is that I don't think it makes sense to use novalue in either. I would like to hear what people think about it. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How to add "A has exactly one B, which is C[edit]

How can I tell Wikidata that Astronomical year numbering (Q751976) has a 0 (Q23104), which is 1 BC (Q25299)?
And when I remove three improper properties from 0 (Q23104) (1, 2, 3), how can I add edit summaries, so other users won't fix it back? Watchduck (quack) 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, the wikidata editor is a hopeless piece of junk from script hell. Otherwise you could try see also (P1659) 1 BC (Q25299) on 0 (Q23104) and vice versa as a clue. But as is this cannot be saved without any clue what's wrong or missing. Unbreak now: Be..anyone (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps that would work? It's the best that I could come up with. I admit to not be clear about anything about this, though. Neither the items nor the properties involved are seem clearly defined to me. Am I understanding correctly that 0 (Q23104) is a year-numbering concept, while 1 BC (Q25299) (existing aliases: 1 BCE, 753 AUC, 0) refers to a fixed period of time, independent of year-numbering system? Dancter (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion request of a bunch of pages[edit]

Hi all, today I tried to request to delete around 2000 items on Wikidata:Requests for deletions, But it doesn't show all of them. I tried to make a list (each with 90 items) but in this list it shows only 9 sections out of 21. Can you please correct it? All those items are belonging to pages which were deleted on hiwiki.☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge problems[edit]

Can someone merge de:Kategorie:Universität in Ankara (Q9150290) with english en:Category:Universities and colleges in Ankara (Q10176265) 00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Pamputt (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


I want really want to start integrating the Wiktionary into Wikidata. With whom do I have to get in contact and what pages do I have to know for this? --Impériale (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Development plan#Wiktionary support and Wikidata:Wiktionary. -- Bene* talk 12:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you :) --Impériale (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

wd-condensed.css: Condensed Wikidata UI CSS[edit]

I've been working on some CSS to make Wikidata's UI more condensed and it is now stable enough for other people to try.

Add @import url('//'); to your common.css file (Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering, and click "Shared CSS/JavaScript for all skins: Custom CSS").

Here are some screenshots:

Notable improvements:

  • Responsive layout; layout changes depending on the window width to make viewing/editing easier
  • Columned view: statements in a statementgroup are now inlined to take less space
  • edit/add buttons are invisible until you hover over a statementgroup/statement

Known issues:

  • Columned view has holes when statements have inconsistent heights
  • Width of references list is sometimes small

I've used it for the last few weeks or so, and I believe I've found/fixed all the critical bugs. Only tested on the latest browsers (~ Chrome 40+, Firefox 36+, IE11).

Hope this is useful. –Hardwigg (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

wow, nice, will certainly try it :)
the way you manage inline display of statements, while keeping them in column for edition is exactly what I would like for language management ;) - now, it's very difficult to add a long label to an item, even worse for descriptions and aliases :( --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Hardwigg: could one have subClassOf and instanceOf always at the top? In many cases both act similar to the description. FreightXPress (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@FreightXPress: Not with plain CSS. If you want that, add the following to your common.js page:
if ( mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') === 0 ) { // On an entity page
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')
                .prepend($('#P31, #P279'));
Hardwigg (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. :) It's great to see people trying to reduce the amount of unnecessary whitespace. That's one of the things which bothers me most about the current layout. I won't be using this as it is though. :( My comments:
  • The hover effect is actually a big hindrance to me, not an improvement. It means I can't see where I'm aiming for on my main computer until I'm already close. It also seems to make it completely impossible to edit statements on touch screen devices like my tablet, since they don't really do hovering.
  • I don't really like the position of the edit link. It feels a bit lost amongst all the qualifiers and references and I keep wanting to interpret it as a link for editing the references, not for editing the statement.
  • The "add qualifier" link when adding a statement appears on the very right of my screen, a long way from the input field and save links.
  • The font sizes for the edit/save links and reference toggle are too small for me and it also makes them harder to click because they're even smaller than they were and I have to be even more accurate with my aiming. It's also problematic on touch screen devices where accurate clicking is difficult.
  • The headings for the "In more languages" section don't have enough padding and the letters are touching or even hanging out of the grey bar.
  • The responsive design doesn't seem to kick in on my mobile or tablet, not sure if it's possible to make that work.
  • This also seems to move the sitelinks (which are currently on the right for me on my main computer) back to the bottom. I'm not sure if that was intended or not, but most of the time there is only one statement for a particular property, so it means the right side of my screen is mostly wasted again, like it used to be before the sitelinks moved there.
Thanks for the piece of JS above! The statements having no consistent ordering is the other thing which bothers me but I hadn't managed to figure out how to reorder them using JS. - Nikki (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Slow creation of properties[edit]

Hello, there are many property proposals, which have had some supporting and no opposing votes since months ago, like the input set. Why haven't they been created yet? Petr Matas 12:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I've been working through the backlog, and have now created input set (P1851). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thank you, Andy! I would like to bring Similar item and its qualifiers into focus as well. In December you wrote that the proposal is unclear, but the details are described in the linked RfC. Have you seen that? Petr Matas 14:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Petr Matas: I've replied there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange invisible change by KrBot[edit]


KrBot has very recently (a few minutes ago) modified all scan file (Commons) (P996) claims that I recently did, like

I really cannot see what is the modification. Could someone pleaseexplain it to me, so that when I add thousands of other such claims (for all articles of the same origin in wikisource), I do not make an error that would need such a bot-correction ?

Thank you very much --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Your file name had underscores instead of spaces. --Pasleim (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
oh, thank you Pasleim, sorry for the accidental copy/paste - the links were working, so I did not know it mattered :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

e-mail (P968) data type[edit]

The datatype of this is String according to the template, but URL according to statements in the entity. It should be string with a formatter url specifying "mailto:". Currently it is only used on one item (with mailto: in the value), so it can be fixed manually. -Hardwigg (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hardwigg: mailto will disallow addresses without @. See --GZWDer (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #155[edit]


Thanks a lot to User:Hardwigg for posting

if ( mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') === 0 ) { // On an entity page
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')
                .prepend($('#P31, #P279'));

I extended this to User:FreightXPress/wd-sorted-statements.js.

if ( mw.config.get('wgNamespaceNumber') === 0 ) { // On an entity page
        /* sections in revers order of display
                desired order: 
                A) TOP/human readable identification of the item
                        instance of, subclass of, names (try with monolingual text)
                B) MIDDLE/real world statements
                        try with globe-coordinate, quantity, time
                C) BOTTOM/external resources
                        identifiers (try with string), commonsmedia
                For maintenance reasons the properties have been 
                - grouped by data type (except for subclass of and instance of)
                - sorted by number, so that new properties can easily be added. 
                Data based on Wikidata:Database_reports/List_of_properties/all
        /******** BOTTOM ********/
        /* data type: string */
                /* don't mention here, will be at bottom automatically 
                        most of the items will be external identifiers
        /* data type: commonsMedia */
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')

        /******** MIDDLE ********/
        /* data type: item */
                /* more than 500 - too much to list here 
                        also contains several of Wikimedia internal things, e.g. topic's main portal, topic's main category etc.
        /* data type: time */
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')

        /* data type: quantity */
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')

        /* data type: globe-coordinate */
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')
        /******** TOP ********/
        /* data type: monolingualtext */
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')
                .prepend($('#P31, #P279, #P1448, #P1449,#P1450,#P1451,#P1476,#P1477,#P1549,#P1559,#P1635,#P1638,#P1680,#P1683,#P1684,#P1705,#P1813,#P1843'));

        /* data type: item (part) */
        /* instance of, subclass of */
        $('.wikibase-statementgrouplistview > .wikibase-listview')
                .prepend($('#P31, #P279'));

Nikki - you said you are interested in consistent ordering too. I would be happy to hear, whether you think this is an improvement. FreightXPress (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)