Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2013/09

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Wiktionary/Wikidata and other projects

For those who are interested, there is a wikipage concerning the Wikidata/Wiktionary-proposals and a comparison of similar projects here: Wikidata:Comparison of Projects and Proposals for Wiktionary

I'd be happy for questions and comments!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaskWa (talk • contribs) at 12:07, 3 September 2013‎ (UTC).

Merger

I'd like to arrange a merger of the Wikidata for three articles which are currently in two separate groupings: (Portuguese Licasto (rei de Creta) and Esperanto Likasto) with the English article (Lycastus). All three articles are about Greek mythological figures with the same name and with the same stories related about them, although there are linguistic variations in spelling based on different transliterations from Greek Λύκαστος. — Objectivesea (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

subtemplate

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

These links all link to items with subtemplates link. Should we delete all these items or have subtemplates allowed?--GZWDer (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Better to delete per WD:N. --Stryn (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
They should be deleted once the old wikilinks are restored to the respective pages. Delsion23 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was for allowing subtemplates items and forget about it, I did not change my mind. Maybe if the tasks to delete every that is (reàcreated they will want to reconsider. In the meantime, I don't really care. TomT0m (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with 2 properties

We have two properties used for the same thing: P766 (P766) and P540 (P540). We need both of them because we have to separate event from place (physical location like building) but right now the definitions are not clear. Snipre (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As they have both numerous translations which may say different things and actual items using them may refer to one or the other of these things, it might be better to opt for a new start.
How about writing proposals for two or three new properties, with detailed descriptions and explicit labels. Once these properties are created, items with the old properties can be moved there and deleted. --  Docu  at 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It's one of the disadvantages of a mulitlang-project. It's difficult to avoid false friend (Q202961). "Event" is, for example, one of them. I have seen an example here, where it has been mistaken for "Concert". -- Lavallentalk(block) 17:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@Docu. Why new properties? We have what we need here, we just have to clarify the definition and the use of these two properties. So can an English speaker define the difference between venue and location and if necessary we can change the label in order to be more explicit.
Until now P766 (P766) was used to define both event and physical place and P540 (P540) only physical place (see the constraints) so the minimal change should be to remove the application of P766 (P766) for physical place. Comment ? Snipre (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Because that is what people are trying to do for several weeks on various talk pages without much of a result. --  Docu  at 09:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Snipre: Till now P766 (P766) is used for the location of an event. It is not used for describing any other aspect of the event. P540 (P540) is also used to describe the location of an event so it is redundant. Filceolaire (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
For that problem we have the project chat or RfC: property proposals are not used to solve application problems: you can't link the creation of one property to another. Snipre (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
? --  Docu  at 09:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You can have proposals for properties that partially supersede others. The proposals for new FIPS properties do just that. Sometimes labels and descriptions on initial creation are too vague and once they are translated into 50 languages this gets even more complicated to sort out. Property creators should generally attempt to do initial creations with detailed descriptions and explicit labels only. --  Docu  at 10:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Here the problem is not translation, it is definition. But instead of saying what should contributors do, perhps we can go ahead and solve the current problem. What do you say about my proposition ? We have two properties and two different uses: we just need to allocate one use to each property. Simple problem, no need of existential question. Snipre (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
if a simple problem becomes a hard one to solves, it's precisely the time to ask ourselves existential questions :) TomT0m (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 :) .. at least for these two properties, users have attempted to do just that at various places (e.g. WD:PFD#venue_.28P540.29_or_location_.28P766.29). Others, I guess it wouldn't have come up here, looking for new ways. --  Docu  at 11:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@snipre: If you start another discussion of an already ongoing discussion, it would be nice/helpful to link this already existing discussion. You start this discussion here with the assumption that both properties are needed, but that isn't the fact. There was votes to remain only one of them and delete the other. --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have started a RFC on 'Place' related properties. Filceolaire (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Scope of P766 (P766)

I proposed on the Property_talk:P766 page that property 'P766 (P766)' should be used for the location of things as well as the location of events.

I have been discussing this with User:Ivan A. Krestinin for a week and a half now and we cannot reach a consensus.

Does anyone else want to post an opinion or a vote on this? ?

Please comment there, not here. Filceolaire (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Problem_with_2_properties above. --  Docu  at 08:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I have started a RFC on 'Place' related properties. Filceolaire (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

merge please

Q288824 and Q10288110 should be merged  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.35.187.19 (talk • contribs).

→ ← Merged. Littledogboy (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Multiple project spam?

On Thursday, I noticed this weird case of an article that appears to be pure spam: Q2524753. I informed the other projects (except Japanese - I totally give up when confronted with asian letters) using the standard deletion nomination template for each project. While here I noticed it is on WikiVoyage too (which strikes me a bit odd). The WikiData item is of course different, because there is no notability concern here, no? I assume the person exists and is a painter. Maybe the WikiData item can be used to indicate that articles on this subject have been deleted? Deleting the item seems unnecessary to me. Jane023 (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We can't delete items as long as there is links left. We have notability policy, see Wikidata:Notability. --Stryn (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That isn't exactly my question. Assuming I was able to inform the Japanese and everything else *was* deleted, isn't it still a good idea to keep the item on WikiData with some kind of deletion history? Jane023 (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No, Wikidata is more technical than wikipedia: items exist if there are some links to wikipedia or the item is used by other items in wikidata. As we don't discuss about the admissibility of item, we don't need to track previous discussions or deletion processes. Snipre (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Was already deleted from dewiki a year ago de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/8._März_2012#Mario_Zampedroni_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29 --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you for the quick replies! I don't need to do anything with the WikiData item then. I will include the German discussion on the English Wikipedia deletion request. Jane023 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Pages and edits statistics per Wikidata namespace

I normally only use the current content of the entity pages (taken from the pages-articles.xml file) when I process Wikidata database dumps. But I have also today fetched the stub-meta-history.xml file from the lastest database dump and used it to make a summary of the number of pages, edits, and edits per page for each Wikidata namespace at User:Byrial/Page statistics. It is a lot of data (3.5 GB compressed) to handle, so I will only update the page regularly if you like it and express interest.

BTW these are the pages with more than 1000 edits:

Byrial (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice. I'm still interested for a list of "edits per user (only in main namespace and without bots)". But as you already explained me, this would also need querying the stub-meta-history.xml. --Nightwish62 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
You can find a table with the most active users and their number of edits in the main namespace at http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/draft/TablesWikipediaWIKIDATA.htm#wikipedians Byrial (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I just used Special:ItemByTitle to search for the page sl:Srce (razločitev) from the Slovenian(?) Wikipedia. In the "site" input field, I chose "slovenščina (slwiki)". But after hitting the search button, I get the message "You can also create an item for slwiki:Srce+(razločitev)." And that link leads to the Second Life Wiki instead of the page on sl.WP. Seems there's some kind of interwiki conflict. --Kam Solusar (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I've reported the bug on Bugzilla. The Anonymouse (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The link should use the language code (used in Special:Interwiki) as "sl:", optionally with the family name "wikipedia:sl:"; the full dbname "slwiki:" is interpreted as link to the Second Life wiki. --Ricordisamoa 15:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Entries by a bot which never had links

Hi there. Are entries like these useful? Q13783630, Q13951486 Made by the same Chinese bot. Palosirkka (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better if the bot used better references than Chinese Wikipedia, but the items pass the Wikidata notability criteria by being used in another item. Delsion23 (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Course on information and metadata

Hey :)

Today a course started on Coursera that might be interesting for some of you: https://www.coursera.org/course/metadata

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Ntsamr?

What is the Ntsamr mentioned in Special:Tags? Palosirkka (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tags_for_languages_added_as_labels_and_aliases. --Stryn (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
See m:NTSAMR. πr2 (tc) 21:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you guys! I know that spambot, quite industrious... Palosirkka (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability and family trees

I'm curious about inherited notability. What are the notability requirements for creating items connected to an existing item (and how many steps away from the main item does the notability carry, if at all)? I apologise if this has been covered already but, if so, I can't seem to find it.

Take Douglas Adams. Connected to that item are Christopher Douglas Adams (father), Janet Adams (mother), Susan Adams (sister), Jane Belson (wife) and Polly Jane Rocket Adams (daughter). None appear to have notability of their own and purely inherit this from the writer.

This seems valid under criterion three of Wikidata:Notability, as they "fulfill some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful" (ie. the Douglas Adams item needs something to fill the "child", "spouse", etc, properties). Assuming they are referenced in a biography, obituary or news article, they might qualify for criterion two: "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references."

How far does this extend? There are properties for grandparents, so presumably they qualify. Would great-grandparents qualify? They would now fulfil a structural need; that is, the father/mother property of the notable items' grandparent items. If I had a family tree, with one notable person within it, could I create items for each person? Should I?

I'm afraid I'm still a little new to Wikidata and I'm still trying to get my head around its policies. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

If I can say what I think personnaly, I'm to drop the notability criterium and to replace it by a sourcability one, Wikidata is a database, not an encyclopedia, no need to discuss and conflicts on every on the millions on items, it's a massive time loss. TomT0m (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thumbs up to that! As far as I have understood, a deleted item will take as much space in the server as a live one. -- Lavallentalk(block) 19:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We're not an encyclopaedia, but we're also not a sandbox for everyone to create family trees on. Items that don't have Wikipedia/Wikivoyage articles attached should be very well referenced to make sure they are verifiable. We can't just have an item for absolutely everything, our database would become watered down and unusable, and more importantly not trusted as it would be full of unverifiable items. It isn't a space issue, otherwise we wouldn't even have WD:RfD... And saying that solving conflicts is a waste of time is odd also, the people that work at WD:IC do a great job in my opinion. Delsion23 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability-conflicts and Interwiki-conflicts are two completly different things, the latter is essential at least in content-namespace-related items. And if notability is based on verifiability, I cannot see how the database will be filled with "unverifiable items". -- Lavallentalk(block) 20:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, I misread it as interwiki conflicts. Notability should indeed be based on verifiability, but how is an item such as Q14776138 verifiable in its current state? It is used in another item, but it is not sourced or anything. The same goes for all the items about Douglas Adams' family members. They do not contain any references, so anyone looking at the item cannot verify that they are indeed correct. This is a real problem. Delsion23 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree, the problem is that Wikidata still do not have very good tools for sources. The file itself on Commons, contains a source, but I cannot link it, I cannot cite it, I can't do anything. It would have been better if all datatypes would have been available before we started to work with statements. -- Lavallentalk(block) 06:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
In that case yes, we do not disagree, we are in full agreement that sourcing should have been available from the start of the project :) It is odd that we still don't have the functions necessary to properly reference items, and the project is almost a year old. Delsion23 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the apparent source for Douglas Adams's mother: Nick Webb, ‘Adams, Douglas Noël (1952–2001)’ But, what is the correct way to cite that in wikidata? Danrok (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
See Guidelines for sourcing statements. --4th-otaku (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is more or less in agreement with Wikidata:Notability. It's just that "notability" does not sound like the right word. --Zolo (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's an attempt to have something similar to en.wikipedia's en:WP:GNG. Unfortunately the referencing function is not yet fully active, so items can be difficult to verify. Delsion23 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Links to Wikidata vs Redlinks

Working on en-wiki I often have a situation then an article I want to link to does not exist on en-wiki but do exist on other wikis. I have to options: either link to wikidata (so the reader could choose any existing interwiki to read available info) another way is to leave a redlink. Link to wikidata provides immediate usefulness to the readers, redlinks a) encourage article createion b) would point out to a correct article after it is created.

I wonder if there is a way:

  1. to automatically convert wikidata links to wikipedia links after the article is created
  2. somehow indicate (by color?) that a link is to wikidata only and the corresponding wiki article is not created yet? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
on frwiki we have something that could be an inspiration for you : a (so called) link template. It takes as a parameter the name of an article in another language, the name of the (future) article in french, the text to be shown, roughly, and shows a redlink to french wikipedia with a (tiny) blue link to the existing article in the other language. When the article is created, the redlink and the tiny link disappear, later a bot deletes the model. It can be extended to Wikidata as well. TomT0m (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you know the "the name of the (future) article in french"? -- Lavallentalk(block) 10:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
We don't, it's the equivalent of a redlink (actually in the end the template generates a redlink), if the article on the subject is created you can't be sure that it will be under the name you chose :) TomT0m (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
PS: I just suggested on Biologists of frwiki to extend the template to use Wikidata, as they complained the language(s) of the article to link was entirely the choice of the writer, for some potential use they had. TomT0m (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of a RedlinkWithWikidataLink template. As far as I could see, neither fr:Modèle:Lien nor one of its interwikilinked sister templates in other Wikipedias support Wikidata links yet. Would it be more appropriate to extend those, or would a new template especially for Wikidata be better? Would extending Wikidata and MediaWiki in general in a way Wikidata would also have a "red sitelinks" section and setting a Wikipedia redlink would automatically add a link to Wikidata if this redlink is connected to a Wikidata item be an alternative for this? --YMS (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Just created this new template who use the special page itembytitle in Wikidata. Its integration into modèle:Lien is another thing as it has it's own purpose and there were previous discussions about it, I started a discussion in its discussion page to check if that's OK with other contributors. TomT0m (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There is same template on enwiki w:en:Template:ill, that can be somehow "wikidatized". --Jklamo (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Note also that w:en:Template:Sister project links already support linking to WD, see w:en:Praxithea. - LaddΩ chat ;) 19:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The template I wrote for french WIkipedia does not require the item number (see the examples on [19]) TomT0m (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I like w:Template:ill-WD it is doing almost the things I wanted. I wonder is it possible to determine the existence of an article on en-wiki not by the first parameter but by existence of the en data on the Wikidata item. Often it is difficult to predict the name of the future article. Is it possible to automatically check the existence and the name of an en-wiki article out of the Wikidata Q number? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Question about building lyrics external links database

Hi all, I operate en:User:LyricsBot, and I'm facing a particular challenge that I think Wikidata can help with.

There are a large number of websites offering lyrics to songs - depending on the site and the individual song, the lyrics may or may not be legally licensed from a lyrics licensor. I am currently having LyricsBot link to MetroLyrics, which has a deal with the licensor LyricFind, and clearly marks lyrics pages with licensed content using the LyricFind "LF" logo (see [20]). You can see the complete list of about 15900 links at en:Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:MetroLyrics song. However, this is just one provider; many others, including LyricsWiki, AllMusic, etc. also have deals with LyricFind or other lyrics licensors (a list of some others known to have license deals is at MusicBrainz, and some more are shown at en:List of online music databases).

I investigated whether MusicBrainz already adequately provides lists of links to licensed lyrics pages, but the situation is problematic at best. They don't distinguish between links to user-contributed content (which is usually infringement) and links to licensed content, using a simple domain whitelist for their links.

Since Wikidata is in its infobox phase, I assume it is already creating items about individual songs. To deal with the lyrics issue, one possibility is a property on these items like "has lyrics at" or "has licensed lyrics at" that indicates "the lyrics of this song are shown at the given URL, and the publisher of that webpage has a license to display that information." I would need to be able to list any number of such URLs under this property, and associate each one with a site name for display purposes (e.g. "MetroLyrics", "AllMusic"). And finally I need a manageable way to display this information in the article, even when the number of links becomes quite large. The extension Special:Book does this with a separate special page - it might work to have a special page, or a subpage, or a collapsible div, or whatever.

Thank you for your help! Dcoetzee (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I did some investigation and got some advice from folks on #wikimedia-wikidata on IRC. It appears that I can adequately describe most songs for my purposes using Property:P357 (title) and Property:P175 (performing/musical artist). I then just need to propose my "has lyrics at" property, which I have done at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#has_lyrics_at_.28en.29. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Larry Sanger

Please see [21]: what do you think? --Ricordisamoa 23:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

P107 (P107) is deprecated. I don't think you should be reinserting it when others delete it.
In my opinion 'instance of' 'person' and 'sex' 'male' is better than 'instance of' 'man' but you should take it to the talk page first, as Петър Петров suggested, before bringing it here. That is just my opinion. Filceolaire (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The block for vandalism seems quite harsh. They did seem to be willing to discuss it on a talk page provided someone started a conversation about it, but I can't see if there was such a discussion. There was also no warning that if they continued they would be blocked, which is usually customary on Wikipedias. Delsion23 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I also disagree with blocking that person when they were pretty clearly trying to edit in good faith. As hard as it is, both sides should have just stepped back and started a discussion somewhere, rather than reverting. Ricordisamoa could have set the example and done so himself. It doesn't matter which particular version is left on the page; the good version will end up there, whichever that is.
To look at the specific content of the argument, I agree with Filceolaire above. P107 shouldn't be used, there should be an instance of person, and a sex male. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The block of the user is actually quite a concern to me: please see User_talk:Петър_Петров#September_2013 Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Block removed, back to the important content discussion. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note, a discussion about this block has been started at Wikidata:Requests for comment/More people should comment on this rv and block. Please feel free to comment. Delsion23 (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Filceolaire : The class man, if classes are set to define constraints in the end, could imply the sex : male property by some mechanism, and even maybe set automatically to improve the user experience. If we have a general mechanism to associate some value to some properties using classes, no problem with that. And set that man is a subclass of human beeing is no problem to. TomT0m (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It could be but it is a big change from how we do it at the moment. I think it would need an RFC at least to make this change. Do you want to draft one? Filceolaire (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's in my pipe and it seem to be the right moment as we need a replacement to constraint violation based on GND main type, so I will soon. TomT0m (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Bear in mind that the English word man can be male or female. From wikipedia "though it could also signify a person of unspecified gender" Man. I don't think we should be using it to indicate gender. Danrok (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sea of Japan/East Sea

Regarding Q27092, I noticed that it was titled "East Sea", which is the name that only two countries recognize, instead of "Sea of Japan", which is the name that most countries and international organizations use. I have since retitled it, however I think this might potentially end up problematic in the future. Should I have made that title change? Benlisquare (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"Sea of Japan" is the title both on enwiki and simplewiki, so it looks like the most logic name. Observe that this only affects the "English" name. The official Korean name is most likly written in the Korean language etc. I have the "Baltic Sea" just outside my window, but we do not name it "Baltic sea" in Swedish. To me it is "Östersjön" i.e. "East Sea" in Swedish. -- Lavallentalk(block) 07:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The "Sea of Japan" article on enwiki has historically had all sorts of troubles and controversy. Editors may change the wikidata page back and forth in bad faith in the future, this is what is potentially concerning. The South Korean government and organizations such as VANK have been actively pushing various companies such as Google Maps, Apple and Microsoft to adopt the name "East Sea" instead of "Sea of Japan". It would probably be a good idea for extra pairs of eyes for this one, just in case. Benlisquare (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I confirm IP changed Sea of Japan (Q27092) to East sea is Korean ISP(based on history). I think As Known as is enough....by ReviDiscussSUL Info at 07:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
How about creating two items and linking them with said to be the same as (P460) ? --  Docu  at 08:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Only Korean(South and North) calls it East sea(동해), so I think it is not good. by ReviDiscussSUL Info at 08:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
(@Docu) Problem is, there's an "East Sea" in Vietnam (South China Sea), there's an "East Sea" in China (East China Sea), and there are East Seas in Europe as well. How many of these linkages would we need to make? I think it would be much simpler just to have the page at the English name that is most commonly used, and then have alternative names within "As known as". Benlisquare (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
That there are many "East Sea" is not a problem, not a problem at all. We can have all 15,000,000 pages here, all labeled as "East Sea". The important thing is what name is "commonly used in English". -- Lavallentalk(block) 08:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope we get more administrators if there are 15 million pages about each topic :( It's difficult enough policing the items we've got already! :D Delsion23 (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
There are maybe 15,000,000 localities in my neighbourhood with the name "Nyland", fortunatly Wikipedia do not have articles about all of them. :P A more serious problem for me is that this municipality changed name 2011 to this and the svwp-community thinks it's a good idea to keep both articles. :'( - Lavallentalk(block) 12:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a problem for Wikidata, we can express replacement and validity statements as qualifiers for or other things, same as-like relationships ... TomT0m (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that these two have the same mayor, same goverment and same parlament. Any mayor or MP will have two position held (P39), one for each item. -- Lavallentalk(block) 14:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
the date of the validity of the statements should not intersect. The one who was the mayor when it was renamed is mayor of the former until the city as renamed, then mayor of the latter. The ones who held offices entirely before the renaming should ideally mentioned only in the former item, if the two solution item is keeped. Of course for data treatments on the Wikidata side we should have a rule of ho to handle renaming ... Or a way to mark a statement as a duplicate of another statement on another item, which could be a generic solution. Or a rule like we keep all information in one item, and the other empty, and if the pedias wants the former mayor in both articles we rule that by a query to find all mayors before renaming. Plenty of solutions, but if we choose one different in every similar cases it will be a mess. TomT0m (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In French we use "Sea of Japan". Snipre (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
How about we just list all of the options in alphabetical order in the aliases section and leave the label blank? Sven Manguard Wha? 01:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with Property405

Hello! I'm trying to call the property 405 in taxobox, but I can get practically any property except this. Is there anything special I have to do to get it? -Theklan (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the article where you are having this problem? Danrok (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to use it in eu:Txantiloi:Taxotaula automatikoa for all automatic taxa articles. The image and range map are loaded correctly, but the "authority" is not loaded. I use | authority = {{{authority|{{ezaugarria|p405|}}}}}, where {{ezaugarria|p405}} should call the property. I have also used Module:PropertyLink, with the same result. You can see that is not working in eu:Haritz_kandudun, where p405 is Carolus Linneaus. -Theklan (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Did you note that Quercus robur (Q165145) does not have independent claims with the taxon author (P405) and year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) properties? Instead they are used as qualifiers for the claim with taxon name (P225). I suppose that is the reason for your problem. I think (but may be wrong?) that you need some Lua code to extract qualifiers. Byrial (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I copied the system that is being used in no:wp, but it doesn't give the same results. -Theklan (talk) 09:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The Norwegian Bookmål article for Quercus robur (Q165145) (no:Sommereik) do not get authorname from Wikidata. The name and year are placed directly in the infobox in the article. Byrial (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but the system is the same for lemon sole (Q127463), where they're automatically inserted. -Theklan (talk) 09:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, taxon author (P405) and year of publication of scientific name for taxon (P574) is fetched from Wikidata for no:Lomre. It can be done because lemon sole (Q127463) does have independent claims with these properties which Quercus robur (Q165145) does not. Byrial (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
That makes the difference, but indeed I can't get it in eu:Microstomus_kitt -Theklan (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I have it done merging different things from no:wp and property claims. The problem is that there shall be a system to make p405 claims independent in all taxa. -Theklan (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Some taxa may have more than one scientific names, and then it makes sense to give the author names and years as qualifiers to them. Byrial (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
So, is there a way to extract that information easily? For example, can I use {{#ifexpr}} type parser functions? -Theklan (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have trouble getting a property to appear in the edit box then enter it's P number - P405 in this case. That always gets round this problem for me. This also works for items - just enter the Q number (including the leading Q). Filceolaire (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem here is getting the value of a qualifier, and for that this otherwise good advice will not help. I am sorry that I cannot help either. Byrial (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think Felix Reimanns Module:Taxobox can help. --Succu (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Database errors

Hello, I have no time to analyze this error list: User:Ivan A. Krestinin/Database errors. Possible somebody has a time to detect buggy bot or something else. Thanks. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It's a change of data format, see WD:Contact_the_development_team#Red_error_messages_for_coordinates. --  Docu  at 20:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Guidelines_for_RfC_process

As the discussions are more or less finished, I open the decision part for the Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Guidelines_for_RfC_process. Snipre (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

ပုိꨓ္း ꨟꨀ္ꨵꨅꨤꨯးလꨱꨀ္ꨵ

ꨁꨣꨳꨟဝ္းလꨯꨳꨟꨀ္ꨵမꨰꨓ္ꨀူꨓ္း ေꨀꨣꨵꨓုိင္ꨳ ꨡꨓ္လြင္ꨳယꨮ္ꨲꨬတꨵ ꨟူꨵဝꨣꨳꨟꨀ္ꨵꨁဝ္ ေတꨵေတꨵယဝ္ꨵꨁꨣꨳ မꨤင္ ပြꨀ္ꨳꨓꨮ္းတꨤင္းဝူꨓ္ꨵꨓꨓ္ꨵꨡြꨀ္ꨲပꨱꨓ္မꨣးꨅူိင္ꨵꨟုိဝ္ꨁꨮ္ꨳလꨤတ္ꨳꨡြꨀ္ꨳꨟꨮ္ꨳေတꨣꨲꨓꨣꨳေတꨣꨲတꨣမꨓ္း ꨀူꨉ္းꨀꨣꨳ ꨁꨤဝ္းယꨤမ္းသမ္ꨵꨡမ္ꨲပꨱꨓ္ꨅꨮ္ꨟဝ္း ꨡမ္ꨲပꨯꨲမီးꨁꨤဝ္းꨓꨓ္ꨵ လြင္ꨳꨡꨓ္ꨁꨣꨳꨅꨮ္ထုိင္ꨁဝ္ꨓꨓ္ꨅြင္ꨲꨁဝ္သမ္ꨵေတꨟူꨵထုိင္ယူꨲꨟုိဝ္ ေꨀꨣꨳꨡမ္ꨲꨟူꨵယဝ္ꨵꨁꨣꨳ သမ္ꨵဝꨣꨳလꨯꨳထူပ္းတီꨳ online ꨀူꨉ္းေꨀꨣꨳꨁꨮ္ꨳယဝ္ꨵ ꨁꨣꨳယုမ္ꨲယမ္ဝꨣꨳ တꨤင္းꨟꨀ္ꨵꨡꨓ္ꨁꨣꨳမီးယူꨲꨓꨯꨵꨡမ္ꨲယြမ္း တꨤင္းꨟꨀ္ꨵꨀူꨳꨀꨓ္ ꨡꨓ္ꨅမ္ꨟꨓ္ꨀꨓ္ယူꨲꨀူꨳဝꨓ္း ꨓင္ꨲꨀဝ္ꨲ ꨀူꨉ္းꨀꨣꨳ ꨁဝ္သမ္ꨵꨅြင္ꨲေတမီးꨅꨮ္မꨓ္ꨳꨀုိမ္းေတꨵꨟꨣꨵꨡꨓ္ဝꨣꨳꨓꨓ္ꨁꨣꨳေꨀꨣꨳꨡမ္ꨲꨟတ္းယုမ္ꨲ ယြꨓ္ꨵꨁꨣꨳꨟဝ္းပꨱꨓ္ꨀူꨓ္း ꨕꨤꨓ္ꨕꨤꨓ္ ꨟꨤင္ꨳꨅꨣꨵꨡြꨓ္ꨲေꨀꨣꨵꨓုိင္ꨳꨀူꨉ္း ꨀူꨉ္းꨀꨣꨳꨎꨮ္းတꨤင္းꨟꨀ္ꨵꨁꨣꨳꨓꨓ္ꨵသမ္ꨵ သင္ꨁတ္ꨲꨁဝ္ေသꨀꨣꨵꨓုိင္ꨳ ꨡမ္ꨲꨟူꨵဝꨣꨳေတလꨯꨳꨟꨱတ္းꨅူိင္ꨵꨟုိဝ္ယူꨲ ꨀူꨓ္းေꨀꨣꨵꨡꨓ္ꨁꨣꨳတတ္းꨡမ္ꨲလꨯꨳꨓꨓ္ꨵေꨀꨣꨳပꨱꨓ္ မူဝ္ꨁူိဝ္း ꨁꨣꨳ ေꨀꨣꨵတꨰမ္ꨳ ꨅꨤꨯးလꨱꨀ္ꨵ

Maybe your native language is Myanmar? You can translate Main page into Myanmar. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have Burmese language support on my computer. I also have Thai language support on my computer (when I google a random character from that paragraph, I keep getting Thai). No idea what's going on. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Two items for the prize of one ?

What's about the article fr:Le père Tanguy on Wikidata page. An error come when you try to fix the article on Wikidata page ... saying "another item". Who can solve the problem ? Thanks and best regards. Mike Coppolano (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Que cherches tu à faire ? Ayack (talk) 09:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Portrait of Père Tanguy (Q13528770) is the item of the painting (or 3 paintings) and Julien Tanguy (Q2512019) is the item of the person depicted on the painting. Pyb (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ayack, il faut lier l'article français aux autres articles > translation : Ayack, the french article need to be join with others same article on Wikidata main page, @Pyb it's just an other point of view of Tittle. That's all. Mike Coppolano (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
en: Portrait of Père Tanguy it's question also of the life of Julien Tanguy. There's no place for two articles about the same subject on all wikis, I really think (For having studied on Julien Tanguy). It's an evidence. Evidence against évidence !! Mike Coppolano (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Careful. The french article is about Julien Tanguy, the man and has it's sitelink on Julien Tanguy (Q2512019). It has pictures of two different portraits of him but it doesn't discuss these pictures in any detail.
The other languages have articles about the portrait of him by Van Gogh and their sitelinks are on Julien Tanguy (Q2512019) Portrait of Père Tanguy (Q13528770). Please do not move the french article from where it is. Filceolaire (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps redirects should be added for the benefit of Wikipedia readeres? Littledogboy (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I have spent many hours to search on the web editing the biography of Le Père Tanguy on wp:fr. There is no stuff for the moment to saying more about life of Julien (probably some letters from painters like Cézanne but a few allusions ... but nothing more to write more than twelve or twenty lines biographical. The short bio on wp:en of Julien Tanguy is right. I have added in it an obituary of fr:Octave Mirbeau written in a newspaper and edited again at the end of the XX century in fr:Combats esthétiques. Waiting for expanding fr:Le père Tanguy with the portraits by Van Gogh. It was for the commodity of our readers that i just propose to link the french article with article of others wiki. (Another thing : Emile Bernard who has written about Julien Tanguy has mixed fact and fiction). For a lot of people Le père Tanguy is a legend but there is nothing more to say except if in 100 years a beggar discover a suitcase with papers of Le père Julien in an old space-tavern. See the website in french about Le Père Tanguy. Thanks for having reading me. Good night at all people ;-) Best regards and happy editing. Mike Coppolano (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mike. On Wikidata we really need to have a separate wikidata page for the man and for each of the portraits as that is the only way we can record data such as date of birth/date of creation etc. - these are different for each thing (=man or picture). This because the 'subject' of every wikidata property (the thing that has the birth date/creation date) is the page the property is used on. (Except for qualifiers - they are a little different.)
This doesn't stop fr:WP from having an article that deals with both the man and the portrait. It just means we need to have another wikidata page for all those wikipedia pages that deal with both to link to and that page will then have the properties has part(s) (P527):Julien Tanguy (Q2512019) and has part(s) (P527):Portrait of Père Tanguy (Q13528770). (This is what we call the 'Bonnie and Clyde problem'). --Filceolaire (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Newbies and talks

I have discovered that many newbies use talk pages if they don't know how to merge pages; see recent changes of the talk namespace (1).

Someone experienced should check this (once a week?) and provide these merges. I don't venture on doing this myself. (In fact, I'm very lazy Czech rollbacker. :)

Since RC are limited up to 30 days, many of these requests are only accessible via special:prefixindex/Talk:Q (four pages). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of others, I know I'll check it once and a while. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. I merged two items from there; I might merge some more later. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 19:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed the same thing just yesterday, and today I have put an according link into my admin tools template that is full with links that I plan to check regularly, though of course I won't promise anything either. But I think some of those links could be useful to others, too, including non-admins. Everybody's free to include this template on his own pages or bookmark it, and if you think you've got something useful to add or change, just go ahead. --YMS (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Very nice. Thanks. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Example of use: An Old Man and his Grandson (Q23915), which should instead have instance of (P31) painting (Q3305213). There are ~90 links to art of painting (Q11629), a lot of which seem to be individual paintings. These individual examples should be easy enough to clear up, but are other subclasses of art (Q735) being abused similarly? KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Abuse is a strong word. When I looked into the article in art of painting (Q11629) I could most easily read, it could be described as "work of painted art". While the corresponding word for "painting" could include anything with some paint on, even my single-colored walls in my kitchen. This means, that it's possible that there is not a perfect match in the interwiki in that item. -- Lavallentalk(block) 19:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
If there are inter-wiki conflicts, they should definitely be sorted out too. I'm going off the English labels and descriptions on Wikidata, which delineates art of painting (Q11629) as the field of art and its practice, and painting (Q3305213) as the final product. KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Other instances of this problem turned up by a quick look: sculpture (Q860861) vs art of sculpture (Q11634); poem (Q5185279) vs poetry (Q482) (Not quite sure about this one.); oil painting (Q174705). Some items explicitly encompass both (e.g., architecture (Q12271)) KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we should document the recommended items somewhere (in this case probably Wikidata:Artworks task force/Item structure) and ideally have a bot dedicated to fixing this kind of common mistakes. See Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/Sk!dbot 3 --Zolo (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Importing statements from Wikipedia infoboxes and data templates

There are many statements that could be imported from Wikipedia articles about South African cities and towns like Johannesburg - administrative unit, postal code, local dialing code etc. Some of those informations are written into the infobox, while others are transcluded from metadata templates like this one. How can they be imported, without having to add every statement one by one?--Underlying lk (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

We have some big discussions about data import from Infoboxes: we try to keep data quality as high as possible and as Wikipedia can't be a source, data imports from wikipedia without external sources are not really supported. Snipre (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
We already have good sources for area codes, administrative divisions and much of the rest, so in this case it should be fine to import them. How can it be done?--Underlying lk (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
There is already a benefit for all Wikipedia projects to add it to Wikidata rather than to maintain 200 versions in sync.
To have it moved to Wikidata, you might want to make a request on WD:Bot requests. ValterVB and others recently completed some of the info for Italian towns. --  Docu  at 05:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Docu and thank you for the reply! I will make a request at bot requests as you suggested.--Underlying lk (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Constraint violations

it is possible to remove GND type from Constraint violations lists? --Rippitippi (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

transistors to merge ?

MOSFET (Q11579901) and MOSFET (Q210793) duplicates ? It seems they are but as I know nothing about it ... this source says they are duplicated (MOSFET and IGFET) but it itself needs sourcing ... TomT0m (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

IGFET redirects to MOSFET on en. I've gone ahead and deleted it. --Izno (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Tomatenpüree vs tomato purée

I think that the link to the German article

Tomatenpüree

should link to tomato purée, as

Tomatenpüree

(alias

Tomatenmark

) is also prepared by heat.Sae1962 (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

For me, the definitive difference between en:Tomato paste (Q1499073) and en:Tomato purée (Q1114674) is hard too see, and it looks like many articles from Q1499073 would be candidates to be linked to Q1114674 instead, not only the German one. And as I don't think the solution is obvious here, I'd suggest reporting the issue at Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts, where it can be investigated in adequate time. --YMS (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Defining fair use?

I think we can make an RfC about whether we can use fair use content, and if it's OK, when, where, and how should we use, for example, P:P387.--GZWDer (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This needs to be asked of general council first—the RFCs we've had on such an issue before always come to that. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 Strong oppose --Ricordisamoa 15:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If Wikidata can't hold any fair use content, we should delete Property:P387.--GZWDer (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't know if it can or not. No-one has gone to bug general council. My feeling is that the CC0 (public domain) is too permissive to allow even fair use (or non-free use). --Izno (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We did ask Counsel about using info from databases which is a much bigger deal for us than whether or not we can include quotations. Filceolaire (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the relevant issue is more whether such short quotes are eligible for copyright in the first place. --Yair rand (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this also what the whole "Leistungsschutzrecht" debate is about? That publishers could start asking for money for these short quotes. --Tobias1984 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Asking is not the same as getting. Have they actually won a court case in the USA where WMF is based? Filceolaire (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The German Leistungsschutzrecht law is in place for only one month now, so there are no cases yet. However, they wouldn't have to sue the foundation in the USA, they could sue you as the user who put that quote to Wikidata directly. But rather independent from that, I'd say it's a good idea to limit a globally accessed database to factual data that can't be copyrighted anywhere. By allowing copyrighted material to some degree, we would get a lot of problems for no benefit at all (as long as Wikidata is not supposed to replace projects like Commons and Wikisource, that is). --YMS (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
CC0 was a mistake, but the property can still be used in many cases. But fair use, no!  Strong oppose -- Lavallentalk(block) 06:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No to fair uses! Wikidata is a global repository for structured data and the data are distributed to all Wikipedia and/or Wikivoyage projects. Kwj2772 (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

NO any fair use AT ALL?

Should we reject ANY copyrighted content?--GZWDer (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is the mission. Let's create the biggest reusable database. However, notice that pure facts have no copyright.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
What's copyright for a data ? It does not exists, as far as I know, copyright is for creative content. No copyright, no need for fair use. Databases can be copyrighted though, but this make my head explode, so let the WM and the WMF work on it ;). TomT0m (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Swedish copyright-law has another opinions about that. Something like CC-BY would solve many cases, but hopefully is it possible to cooperate with the database-owners. -- Lavallentalk(block) 16:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious, what roughly the swedish copyright law ? I always thought opening that door would be worse than allowing to copyright algorithms. Think about a prime minister not allowed to say publicly the number of inhabitants of its country if it has been calculated by a private company ... I hope fair use law are pretty good :) TomT0m (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
He is allowed to tell "publicly the number of inhabitants of his country", but it's a violation of § 49 copyright-law (katalogskydd) to copy large parts of a database. Private or public databases have the same protection. So if he tells all the population of each of the ~5000 localities, he is violating the copyright. It's protected in 15 years from publication. -- Lavallentalk(block) 17:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In france it's the same (I just learned there is general laws in the European Union). Where it makes my head explode is that when I wonder if a significant number of wikidatians source their datas with a unique source it can be considered as a massive information importation and a database law violation. The gray line seems to me way too intrusive and dangerous. TomT0m (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
A work-around is that many interesting databases are free to use if the publisher is attributed. So as long as we provide a (good) source, are there no big problems. "Imported from Wikipedia" is not a good attribution, it's technically a copyvio. As I said somewhere else, CC-0 was a mistake, change to CC-BY. -- Lavallentalk(block) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No it's not, if we consider Wikipedia as a database (what is a database anyway?), the import of one data is not a problem. It's the import of one of the data that could be a problem. BUT the question is : who owns the database ?? It's not the users who built it, as database law is something different than copyright law, so it might be the WIkimedia Foundation ... So if there is a real problem maybe ... I cite the article on french wikipedia about that : "Ainsi, l’investissement pour la création des données de cette base (par exemple la rémunération des auteurs d’articles originaux pour une encyclopédie) n’est pas pris en compte" src on fr: (the payment of people who write articles for an enciclopedy is not taken into account as a substancial effort to build the database). Database law seems like a real mess. TomT0m (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
In general is it more or less a mess to try to implement US-laws on us in EU. I cannot give away my copyright, it's impossible. I can give away my claims to the economical benefits of the copyright, but never the copyright itself. It belongs to me, and not until 70 years after my death. It belongs to med forever. -- Lavallentalk(block) 18:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking about US laws, I'm talking about the most restrictive laws, that is the EU laws, who are more restrictive on database, so might call for the more problem (yeah, we are talking about a US law concept, but it's not even sure that there would be a need for fair use in the US for databases as they might not be copyrighted.) And even without talking of fair use it's difficult to understand the database laws in th EU for me, it's a mess : is Wikipedia a database, who onws the database (speaking of french laws), the employer as in software, the guys who collects the datas as a writer in literature ? We might not be even sure that we need to define fair use as the laws might make we do whatever we want without us knowing it :) (the opposite might be more probable and we might not be able to collect datas as we want if that looks like more or less to another databas, which would be nonssense, but at this point I do not rule out any possibility :). TomT0m (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

 No This proposal makes no sense. Most content on Wikidata (CC0 1.0 or CC BY-SA 3.0) is copyrighted, we just publish it under a free licence (= grant other users the right to reuse it). Vogone talk 17:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it doesn't really make sense to discuss this much further until we get the promised document from the WMF lawyers. They are working on it. Once we have that we know what boundaries we can work in. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I am all for having absolutely no fair-use on this project. I don't see anywhere near enough of a benefit from having it to offset the problems it causes with reuse and the conflict with the mission that it causes. Of course, I'm against fair-use on WMF projects in general, so I could be seen as biased. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with P387 (P387)?

Should we delete it or only used with copyleft/PD content?--GZWDer (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The property do not need to be deleted, there are many PD-sources you still can use if for. -- Lavallentalk(block) 07:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a limit to what external links are permitted?

Last October, I had started work on my own system for an open database of interwiki links (around the same time as this project was starting, as it turns out). I'd really love to see Wikidata take its place (metapoint.io was one of many side projects I can't dedicate much time toward, wheras Wikidata has all the community and support of a Wikipedia project). However, one of the big axioms of the database I was building was that there would be no restrictions as to what pages could be linked - everything from http://www.dmoz.org/, to Amazon product pages, to Leonard Maltin Movie Guide entries, etc. Are there any policies limiting what external links can be included for an item? --Stuart P. Bentley (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Currently, no external links can be include. The corresponding datatype isn't available yet. --  Docu  at 05:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Currently the 'url' datatype is not available but it should be ready real soon. There will be restrictions on what sites these link to. No sites with unlicensed material for instance.
Right now there are however numerous properties which can be used to point to database identifiers such as IMDb ID (P345) and MusicBrainz work ID (P435). These are all listed in Wikidata:List_of_properties/all under "Authority control". Where these databases are online these properties may be used to point to the online entry. Filceolaire (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Check whether a Wikivoyage article is linked from Wikidata

I want to programmatically check whether an English Wikivoyage article (for instance Bronzeville) is linked from the Wikidata database or not.

For instance, the Bronzeville article at English Wikivoyage is NOT linked from Wikidata (even though the item exists).

Note: Some Wikidata items have labels, but that does not imply existence or non-existence, as some items have no label, and some items with the same label refer to two different things (for instance a place and a person).

Is there a way to do this, via the Wikidata API, WikiDataQuery or other? Thanks!

The goal is to help identify all Wikivoyage articles that need to be linked from Wikidata. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Compare: [22] and [23]. I think you can identify if a page on Wikivoyage have an item by that. -- Lavallentalk(block) 08:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately in most cases that does not work, because Wikivoyage and Wikidata names are different VERY often (more than 50%).
For instance, Al Hudayda on Wikivoyage is Al Hudaydah on Wikidata. Akiu on Wikivoyage is Akiu, Miyagi on Wikidata. Etc Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a good starting point, and once all the items have been acted upon, we can ask someone to bot-generate a list of Wikivoyage items without Wikipedia links. The Wikivoyage items not at all linked to Wikidata should be only very new items, I think the Wikidata items are bot created pretty soon after the creation of an article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"The Wikivoyage items not at all linked to Wikidata should be only very new items" is not true. There are a number of "guide" type pages which do not fit anywhere into the normal "location" scheme. "Walking on a beach in X place" for example. --20.132.68.148 15:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is indeed correct, but I still do not see how a large number of these articles can become unlinked with Wikidata. The bots should take care of this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
You can use a query like [24], and check that "wikibase_item" is set. Legoktm (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"The goal is to help identify all Wikivoyage articles that need to be linked from Wikidata." - Isn't that what Special:UnconnectedPages is for? Texugo (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Legoktm and Texugo for solving my problem :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Oversight nomination

Just a heads-up that I've nominated myself for oversight rights at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Oversight#Ajraddatz. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: one oversighter was elected initially, but two or more are required for appointment (i.e. a single oversighter is not permitted).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Move the page "compostos fenólicos" in Portuguese

The site link "Compostos fenólicos" is used by item Q9834726 that resides at https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compostos_fen%C3%B3licos

The correct item is Q407142 where resides others translations of the same subject like in Spanish "Compuesto fenólico" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.38.217.72 (talk)

→ ← Merged For information on merging, please see Help:Merge. The Anonymouse (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Please help me compile a list of major accomplishments of Wikidata

I am in the process of writing a year-in-reflection editorial piece, which I'd like to have completed in time for the one year anniversary of the project becoming publicly editable (so just under two months from now).

As part of that, I'm looking to compile a list of accomplishments that have happened in the past year. They can either be major accomplishments that happened on Wikidata or major accomplishments that happened because of Wikidata. If anyone wants to list some here, I'd be very appreciative.

Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the sheer amount of interwiki links that we have removed from Wikipedias (in the region of about 240,000,000?) is an incredible feat. And new links are being created between articles that have been separate for as much as a decade. It would be great to hear some statistics about the number of new connections we are making possible here. Interwikis between categories were particularly badly done on Wikipedia, and are now being corrected on mass. This project must have grown in size quicker than any other Wikimedia project surely? I also think the project should be congratulated in forming such an active community in such a short period of time. Delsion23 (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I recall reading somewhere that Wikidata has more geocoordinates than any individual Wikipedia. If correct, that sounds like a somewhat major accomplishment. --Yair rand (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not just about the sheer number of items/claims/sitelinks, but the community activity. --Ricordisamoa 14:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, item connections have allowed some sort of checking, so many incorrect data have been permanently (and finally) removed from Wikipedias (example) --Ricordisamoa 14:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Soulkeeper's work with duplicates (User:Soulkeeper/dups) has helped lead to a fair number of article duplicates (usually about taxonomic entities, which have been generated by bot processes) being merged on local Wikipedias (in particular, nl. and vi.), which increases their quality as well. --Izno (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Byrial's amazing lists from database dumps has identified n number of duplicates and merge candidates. It would be fitting to mention it here.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe you could also say something about available statements:
    • 30 percent of all items are categorized in 6 large groups.
      • Most are items about geographic features (1.7 million), some of these already have coordinates (0.5 million).
      • Items about persons are fairly frequent too (1.3 million), many already with gender (0.9 million), a few with DOB (0.05 million) or DOD (0.04 million).
    • We start getting groups of items with fairly deep sets of properties (e.g. Italian municipalities, taxons, ...). Obviously this is somewhat limited by the absence of datatypes for numbers. --  Docu  at 05:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe best not mention the "6 large groups", as this property is being deleted :-( --Magnus Manske (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it is a current achievement. A possible replacement should do a similar thing. --  Docu  at 08:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Bug or just wrongly implemented by myself?

I am about to add WD info to some of the province infoboxes at Wikivoyage. Now I got a problem. Look at this template for infoboxes for Cambodian provinces I take the information about locator map and capital from Wikidata. But look at the Kampong Cham Province. I see a red link to Kampong Cham. Maybe it's because the article does not exist in German Wikipedia but it exists in German Wikivoyage, and that's the article I want to link to. It works fine in Banteay Meanchey - because the article exists in German WP and WV (with the same name). Is it intentional, that the property P36 (capital) provides the WP article name? How can I link to the WV article automatically if a) the WP article does not exist (but the WV one) or b) the WV and WP articles are named differently? -- DerFussi 09:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually what the template currently does is find the German label of the capital of Kampong Cham in Wikidata (it is stored in Q855724). The link to the Wikivoyage article with this label. If the Wikidata item has the same label as the Wikivoyage article, it works fine, but if it is different it does not work. In this case, there was no German label in Q855724, so the ID was shown instead. have changed the label to " Kampong Cham Test", and now the link goes there (also red). It should ideally be fixes with a Lua function, but I dont' know if it is possible yet. --Zolo (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archive/Split by month for WD:IC

Does anyone know how to set up automatic archival for Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts? It would save it having to be done manually. Also, what do people think about separating out the reports into different pages by month? The list is getting very long and unmanageable. Delsion23 (talk)

Hazard-Bot (and similar) should be instructed to archive sections only if "status = resolved". --Ricordisamoa 01:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If you ask me: AA – yes please, perhaps 5 days after marking as resolved (if possible); split – no. Littledogboy (talk) 12:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If anyone knows how to get Hazard-bot to begin performing archives that would be great, thanks. On the second point, I disagree with Littledogboy, I think splitting it would be better. We still have several reports from November and December when the project first began, some ICs do not get solved quickly. This is usually because they are very complicated. I think it is desirable to split them by month, and then concentrate on emptying each page with the earliest being prioritised. If they are not split, the page will eventually become impossible to navigate. Delsion23 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
An alternative would be to set aside some types of conflicts into subpages. In particular, I'm thinking of "conflicts that can only be resolved using redirects, when introduced". (+ highlighting the original cry for help) Littledogboy (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
We mus be aware that some conflicts can only be solved by writing new articles or by removing more or less redundant articles in some wikipedias or by using links to redirects which are allowed but can not be handled technically by now. So some conflicts will remain for months or years or even forever.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed items

I saw that some-one have removed all the items (wikipedia links) from the page Category:Indigenous peoples (Q7029110). Now I tried to undo all but not able to do. Can some-one let me know how to do this in a single click. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it by hand because it is not really apparent why the split was made. Also User:Tolea93 did not take care of all the removed links. The same user removed some links at Category:Mountain passes by country (Q6939870) and Category:Political party alliances (Q6959909). No idea what he is intending to do. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Staying logged in

Is anyone else having trouble staying logged in here? I have no trouble staying signed in to the various language versions of WP and WV that I use, but every time I leave this site for 10 minutes and come back, I have to sign in again, on both my work and home computers. Texugo (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you using http or https? Https is now the default for Wikimedia sites, but sometimes you can accidentally end up on http (by following an old link, for example). The login is dependent on the connection type (e.g. logging in on https only shows that you are logged in if you are viewing pages with https). Just a though — not sure if this is your problem. The Anonymouse (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a general problem with the SUL login. There are sites, for instance, where I appear to be logged out, but if I click to any link, I suddenly find myself logged in. (No problems specifically with WD though).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been having problems myself. From what I know there is a bug open on it. I'll see if I can find the number... Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Problem started yesterday for me. I'm logged out on all the main pages of Wikipedia and Wikidata. When I press on any site link, I'm immediately logged in. Another problem is that I'm logged out when I check my email notifications. Now my whole watchlist is not marked as "read" and I don't get any new notifications about changes. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Adding https (instead of http) to all my shortcuts solved one part of the problem. But the Wikipedia and Wikidata notification email system still uses "http". Can somebody add that to the Wikimedia-wide bugzilla? --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I found the https bug of the email notification system in bugzilla. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata being populated with massive amounts of outdated data from Swedish Wikipedia

Recently, Lsjbot created a few hundred thousand stub articles on the Swedish Wikipedia for the world's known animals and insects. While this sounds like a nice idea, the problem is that all of these articles are based on the ITIS Catalogue of Life, a giant database created by compiling together pretty much every taxonomic database on the internet. The quality of the data in this database is all over the map, and it doesn't seem that ITIS does a very good job of vetting or updating the data. It looks like most of their sources haven't been pulled from since 2010, so even if the source database is up-to-date, ITIS often isn't. So now all of this random-quality taxonomic data is being imported en masse to Wikidata by various bots. Mostly this entails incorrect scientific names (example) which do not reflect recent synonomies, splits, merges, or transfers to other genera. I don't have any proposal on how to fix the situation or even if it should be fixed, but I at least wanted to let people know about it. I understand that these problems can be mitigated by curating the data on Wikidata, but how do we deal with massive influxes of bogus or questionable data? Kaldari (talk) 23:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If the articles have all been created and a bot has added entries to Wikidata on them then the damage has been done. All we can do at this point is hope that the quality control system over the next while can weed out the bad stuff, though that will be difficult with 13 million items. If a bot hasn't yet added items for all of those articles here, then we could stop their import. I'm not sure how to check for this though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for this example of bad practice: if you can't check the data before the import, nobody will do it later. Like the nature people doesn't like vacuum. Snipre (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
If it's some relief, carbon-based lifeforms tends to do even worse when they are creating articles. I am doing an inventory of the articles about Swedish localities on svwp, and they are much worse, and they are all handmade. Those articles on svwp who are fine, their items here are often filled with strange things from enwp and others, that shouldn't be added to a locality-item. -- Lavallentalk(block) 09:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no mechanism to prevent wikidata collecting outdated or wrong data. Maybe the situation can be improved when ranking is possible. You then can mark properties as "deprecated rank" to prevent bots or users to use outdated information to "update" their database or create new stubs or aricles based on this outdated information. On the other hand you can keep outdated information for documentary purposes. Next thing is the use of sources. On one hand Wikidata uses information of the articles for popultaion the properties on the other hand bots and users will use wikidata as a source for articles and stubs. In the beginning it was not possible to source items and properties properly so this is our downfall now. Users and bot-operators must be be aware of the "egg and hen problem".--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. The problem is threefold: a) Several Wikipedias (not only sv) created bot-based articles based on ITIS, b) other bots import this data to Wikidata, c) the team at the Wikidata:Taxonomy task force which tries to import taxonomic data based on reliable literature is small while the number of taxa is huge.
Regarding a): I think, we cannot solve this. Our task is also to provide interwikilinks for the articles which have as a topic "Zygoballus citri" whatever this is.
b) What we can do is add sources. If we would import ITIS database (it is public domain) and add ITIS as source to the claims it at least would be visible, where this information comes from - and - that it's publication date is in many cases somewhere around 1997. In fact I'm working on a bot for this task. I would prefer to start with another more reliable database (e.g. Reptile Database for squamata) however all other databases I know are not compatible to CC-0. Thus, it is still unclear if we can use them for direct import due to copyrights.
c) Another way is to create such a database for ourselves. The task force is working on this, we have some first bot-supported work flows to speed the things up and sourced already some thousands of taxa based on primary sources. However, this process is labour-intensive and in contrast to the import of whole databases does only improve things in small parts. See for example rosids (Q338878). If you want, your help is very welcome.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Felix Reimann +1. There are task forces working on data import so when someone asks for data import there is a need of a strong support of the persons working on the specific data. Snipre (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is a big problem, but it is not limited to bot-created articles. On the English Wikipedia there are a lot of folks who think that ITIS is prime-quality taxonomic source ("It is on the internet, so it must be true!"), and the other day I found a article on the Spanish Wikipedia that had been based on IPNI (!!!), resurrecting a genus that had not been recognized for something like a century. At a rough guess up to 80 or 90% of articles in the Wikipedia's on taxa are so poor that it would be beneficial to just delete them. It would be better to import selected data from Wikispecies (the percentage of real junk in Wikispecies is somewhat less), or, even better, from real databases. - Brya (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
One of the main problems is: Bots like EmausBot are creating lots of new items without any properties and without labels. --Succu (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Items to merge?

epic poem (Q12639940) looks similar to poem (Q5185279). Can anyone confirm ? - LaddΩ chat ;) 02:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, we need a Serbian or Croatian speaker. I know at least one who has this page in his watchlist, let us wait.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the distrust, Laddo, but as you can see in Q474090, in Slavic languages the word "poema/t" does not simply mean a poem, but a kind of longer, perhaps mostly epic poem, somewhat akin to Q37484. Not sure what an English translation of the word would be, and neither am I sufficiently fluent in all Slavic languages, or knowledgeable of literary history to try to untangle the conflict between Q12639940 and Q474090. If you wnat to investigate, you can go through the examples of "poema" given on the original hr/sr pages. Littledogboy (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

cs-language WP has articles for both these items; a user on their WD project chat did confirm that these two items represent different concepts. Thanks for updating the English description - LaddΩ chat ;) 22:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Filtering out unconnectable articles from Special:UnconnectedPages

We are doing our best to connect all connectable Wikivoyage articles from their matching Wikidata item, using the very useful Special:UnconnectedPages.

PROBLEM: Not all articles are connectable, for instance this itinerary and this diving guide for a 25 meter-long reef and this heteroclite compilation will never have a Wikipedia article (not notable/encyclopedic). If I understand policies, this means they will not have a Wikidata item. We have started listing these articles, there are no more than 200.

How can we "filter out" these articles from Special:UnconnectedPages, so that we can continue to use it to connect new articles that get created everyday?

Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, they can still have use for WD-statements! -- Lavallentalk(block) 10:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Why shouldn't those Wikivoyage articles get Wikidata items? Wikidata:Notability says, if there's a Wikivoyage article, the subject is notable for us. There is no need to have a Wikipedia sitelink additionally, if there is no matching one. --YMS (talk) 10:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers, I just read Wikidata:Notability and it does not sound like "Six Days in Historical New England" or "Japan's Top 3" are clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity nor needed to make statements made in other items more useful. Is it really OK to go ahead and "pollute" Wikidata with those? Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
But as the first criterion for notability is fulfilled, there's no need for the other two to be fulfilled. --YMS (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Like YMS says, the page only needs to meet one of the criteria to be notable, per WD:N. The Anonymouse (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I connected nearly all it:voy: articles, but several hundreds remaining on it:voy:Special:UnconnectedPages are talk pages, user pages and template documentations. A bug should filed about filtering pages that should not be connected. --Ricordisamoa 11:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need a way to specify what namespaces are fit for connection? Actually, is there any case where it would make sense to connect something which is not in the main article namespace? Nicolas1981 (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Special:UnconnectedPages should only display pages that can have items created for them, such as pages in the main, template, category, and project namespaces. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Error messages when moving links from one item to another

I have been fixing some links for WV article that were linked to the wrong data item, but the last two I have done have resulted in breaking the item such that all I get is a page that says "Unexpected non-MediaWiki exception encountered, of type "InvalidArgumentException"" followed by a list of stuff I don't understand. All I did was add a couple of links, in the standard way, and they appeared to be fine until the page was refreshed... The two items in question are Q996763 and Q995318. Does anyone know what's going on here? Texugo (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This issue has also been reported here. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Untranslated taxons

Hello, I was testing page w:fi:Kotipihlaja (Sorbus aucuparia) in the Finnish Wikipedia, and tried to get taxon information from Wikidata. I would want, for example the P71 property, family (Rosaceae), untranslated! Now I get the Finnish translation "ruusukasvit", instead of the "Rosaceae". How can I get the Rosaceae instead of ruusukasvit? --Hartz (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The language of the statement is dependent on what language you are using on Wikidata. For example, with Rosaceae (Q46299), I see "Rosaceae" in English because my language preference is set to English. I assume your preference is set to Finnish, which is why it is showing "ruusukasvit". Compare this with this.
In other words, the statement displays whatever label is in the current language. The only way for you to get it to display as "Rosaceae" in Finnish is to change the Finnish label, which may or may not be desirable.
I can't remember specifically where and what the outcome was, but I think there was a discussion about taxon names in multiple languages. The Anonymouse (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Probably you want the taxon name (P225), but for now isn't possible to use in w:fi:Kotipihlaja. Need to fix Bug 47930 so you can use something like {{#property:P225|{{#property:P71}}}}--ValterVB (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, exactly. Let's fix the issue! --Hartz (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Q171711

Now this item returns icorrect PHP results (saved). This item contains links to Star Trek Into Darkness. --Emaus (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The same thing is with Q544098 and Q1729018. --Emaus (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been reported here. The Anonymouse (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Pages should be merged?

Hi,

I saw there are two wikidata entries about the Vivaldi Opera Giustino: Q5565559 and Q2639298. It shows in wikipedia in EN and IT (the interwikis are not overlapping).

Can someone merge the two pages?

thx, -- AlienSpoon

→ ← Merged. All those links are now at Giustino (Q2639298). --Stryn (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Great, thx! AlienSpoon (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

some or unknown value?

I just added "somevalue" to coat of arms image (P94) in an item. The text who appears in the GUI is "unknown value". This looks strange. The value is "wellknown", but there is no file on Commons for it. "Some value" would be a better description. -- Lavallentalk(block) 09:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "special values" should be prettier and clearer, but I think that "some value" is really intended to mean "value exists but (according to one source) is unknown". In this case, do we really need to add a value to coat of arms image (P94). I think we should have an item about the coat of arm and link to it thourh coat of arms (P237). That makes it that the coat of arm does exist. If we do not provide image simply because there is no file on Commons, I do not think it is useful to mention it. If we have no image because of copyright reason, then perhaps we should use a "licence" property in the item about the coat of arms ? --Zolo (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes we should delete P94 and use P237/P18 instead, but please wait until we from WP can reach properties of other items than the directly connected to the article.
I will, when I have time, create a P237-relation for this item, but I do not have had time for it yet. Available coa's on the net are copyrighted, but anybody with the artistic skill and sense for coa's can make one from the blazon. But nobody has done so yet. There is an article about this coa, but it is merged with other coa's in the same article. The blazon is in this case copyrighted (from 1964), and since we do not allow fair use, it cannot be added to the item. The coa contains this and some colors... -- Lavallentalk(block) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

URL datatype is coming

Now we can use URL datatype and I created reference URL (P854) for url links. [25] this edit is example of it. --DangSunM (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage not on every page! Make it optional

An example where the wikivoyage inclusion does not make any sense is the following: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q168577 Pleas make the inclusion of wikivoyage optional!--92.205.7.44 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is already optional - nobody is forcing the addition of links to Wikivoyage. It's just there for if there are any. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
But it should not even show up (by default) on a page that deals with vacuum cleaners: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q168577 --92.201.209.90 09:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Why not? Should a Wikipedia links section also not show up by default? --Yair rand (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure wikipedia links should show up by default because wikipedia deals with all objects. Wikivoyage only deals with places or voyages and so on. Technical devices like a robot vacuum cleaner will not be described in wikivoyage.--92.193.39.95 08:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
"wikipedia deals with all objects", not true, there are some objects who only will deal will Wikivoyage-things, and some object will only be internal Wikidata-objects. -- Lavallentalk(block) 09:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
In this case, just don't add a Wikivoyage link, just like you don't add a statement defining a date of birth or an author for a place, while you still could, if it would be appropriate in certain cases. See Denny's interessting blog post about this "open world" model of a database. --YMS (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
What i question is wheter "Wikivoyage pages linked to this item(0 entries)" has to be shown by default for entries that will *never* contain a wikivoyage link. Why not hiding these parts?--92.193.116.221 19:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
You'll never know if it ever will contain a Wikivoyage link. If that part would be hided by default on all "Q" pages the adding of Wikivoyage links is more difficult then it should be. Because that will need an option in preferencens for people that do want to see this. --Wiki13 talk 09:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
There still can be boolean variables "whether to show W.. section" with checkboxes attached to every item. So one will be able to change the way of representation of an item, eliminating redundant elements. Infovarius (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, that would replace one line "No Wikivoyage articles linked - [add]" by one line "[ ] show/allow Wikivoyage links". It would require additional data on each item, additional logic in the GUI, and additional work steps for everybody adding the first Wikivoyage sitelink to an item, for no benefit at all. --YMS (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Battles and sieges of Kars need a merger

We have two groups of interwiki links, both referring to the same thing. On one hand we have battles of Kars disambiguation pages:

Then we have sieges of Kars:

Both groups need to be merged, but I can't add interwiki links from one group to the other manually. Any ideas? Halibutt (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

They can be merged by removing the links from Q4871392 and adding them to Q815155 but I'm not sure if it is a correct merge technically. DAB pages are usually linked together if they are the same spelling. I'd merge it myself using the merge.js gadget, but I'd like more input from someone who knows our DAB policies better than me. Delsion23 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes the disambiguation pages need separate items, for detailed information see here. -- Sixsi6ma (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Does this mean we should maintain two different sets of disambiguation pages even though both are the very same thing? Or am I missing something here?
The very first sentence of this guideline says: "Pure disambiguation pages should contain interlanguage links only where a similar problem of disambiguation exists in the target language". Which is clearly the case here: all language versions of Wikipedia acknowledge that there is more than one armed engagement near the town of Kars. The only problem is that some local editors chose to call them battles, while others called them sieges. Technically both approaches are correct and both refer to the very same thing.
However, the next sentence is very confusing in this context: "The item should only contain links to Wikipedia disambiguation pages with the exact same spelling". Which would be fine if we had, say, English page on en:Berlin (disambiguation) and a German page on de:Berlin (Begriffsklärung) (which we do apparently). However, there's no chance a historical term like this could have the very same spelling of the term in many languages. "Battle of" tends to be translated, same for "Siege of". Not to mention we also have Cyrillic pages out there. Or am I missing something here? Halibutt (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Another example with sv/ru-iw: Battle of Öland (Q4530728) (Battle at Öland) 5 battles, we have also lost some wikipedians in the editwars about the labels on svwp... -- Lavallentalk(block) 07:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
...Anyone..? Sixsi6ma..? Halibutt (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I'd still say, stick to our policies and work exclusively with spelling as a basis for linking disambs. Perhaps the examples Halibutt's giving simply should not be disambiguation pages – see en:Wikipedia:DAB#Set index articles: "A set index article is not a disambiguation page." ... and it's pages "share a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name." Littledogboy (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say
  • "Ignore all rules" and merge these items.
  • Put a section on the Help:DAB page explaining why this exception to the general rule is appropriate.
  • Make sure each of the language labels has an alias so it is clear both "Battle of Kars" and "Siege of Kars" are acceptable names for this page.
  • Wait till someone invents a stupid TV show about demolition derby called "Battle Kars" and buggers up this compromise. Filceolaire (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Another excellent example to illustrate the scale of the problem is Q227885 – spelling differs also. Again, I'd say this is a list, rather then a classical DAB. Littledogboy (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"classical DAB"? I see daily dabs with "Jöran Person, Göran Person, Jöran Persson, Göran Pärsson, Jöran Pehrsson etc, it is 500 ways to write the same thing. "Carlsson" and "Karlson" can be on the same page in a phonebook, let them be in the same page! Dabs are simply pages in the main namespace who are not intended to contain normal "content", but to help people to find the correct page. -- Lavallentalk(block) 16:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree, from readers' point of view – who cares about interwiki links on DAB pages? Are they even marginally useful for someone? I doubt it.
What we must do, however, is to prevent infinite loop of editing, someone splits item, creates a new one, then other editor merges, etc. That's why we should have common sense rules that are simple to apply. Littledogboy (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I was bold and merge them. I advocate for "topic disambigs" (how I call them), that they can be linked with articles in other languages. Now I know that en-wikipedia call them "set index page", good. Infovarius (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Infovarius.
@Littledogboy - interwiki links on DAB pages are indeed useful to some. For me for instance they are a great way to look for more possible sources. But there's a bigger picture than the question of whether they are useful. That is: would the reader expect them to be there. And the answer is yes, definitely. If you're reading an article on, to use my example, Siege of Kars (1828), you expect the interwiki links to include all other articles on the same battle, regardless of what the name for Kars is in that language, or what the local word for "siege" is. Likewise, when looking at a list of all battles of Kars, you expect to find there all such lists. Not only those that call the battle a battle, or siege, or skirmish, or encounter in the local language. I can see no merit in any other solution. What would precisely be the point of separating them from each other? Halibutt (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Systematic removal of P107 (P107) prior to RfC closing

Over the last few days, I have noted the systematic removal of P107 (P107) (whose elimination was already decided on a RfC) even when there is an open RfC regarding how to deal with this issue. I haven't been able to follow the discussion on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Migrating away from GND main type, but common sense dictates that no action should be taken with such a property (the most used as far as I know) before any community decision/consensus is secured. In particular (and what worried me the most), Emw has decided not only to eliminated P107, but also to add statements, such as human (Q5) instead of person (Q215627), which until now it's just one of several proposals. Am I missing something? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it and added the appropriate subclass/instance claim where it does not concern a person, myself, as those cases are fairly obvious. The characterization of whether it should be person or human or some other item used in the claim of instance of is indeed rather convoluted, so I would also personally disagree that Emw's actions are correct. --Izno (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I manually replaced P107 (P107) person (Q215627) with instance of (P31) human (Q5) claims on 55 items. That's 0.004% of the P107 'person' claims. There's ongoing discussion on precisely which P31 value we want to use for humans that have P107 (P107) person (Q215627) claims, but noone has proposed using instance of (P31) person (Q215627). The two proposals thus far are using instance of (P31) Q14870023 or instance of (P31) human (Q5). Of the handful of people who have weighed in, most have voiced preference for the latter. Izno seems to be the only one thus far who might support the former. To my knowledge noone has specifically raised concerns about the P31 'human' option, but a concern on the 'human person' option has gone unanswered for several days. These things indicate to me that replacing P107 'person' claims with P31 'human' claims on items about actual people on a relatively small scale is not especially controversial. However, since others prefer that to not be done, I'll stop until a definite conclusion to that particular question is reached.
I've also manually removed or replaced over 100 P107 'term' claims with P31/P279 claims, and replaced a few dozen P107 'person' claims that were applied to items about deities with instance of (P31) deity (Q178885). Neither of those actions seem controversial. A large-scale remapping of P107 'term' claims is not expected as part of the migration RFC; everyone who has voted seems to agree on this much. P107 'person' claims about deities will likely require some manual curation, and the claim I'm using for it has some initial support and no opposition.
So unless there are specific objections to how I've been dealing with P107 'term' and 'person' claims about deities, I'll plan to continue that sort of manual work. If anyone does object to that, please reply here and/or on my talk page. The edits of mine that triggered this are reviewable here and my most recent edits are reviewable here. Emw (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I've been doing the same as Emw. Filceolaire (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

URL datatype is coming online soon, we need to be ready to replicate cite web citations

Wikipedia uses several templates to handle citations. One of the most common is cite web, which is built to cite web pages.

It has a bunch of fields, but there are only eight that are really important:

  • Last name
  • First name
  • Title
  • URL
  • Work
  • Publisher
  • Access date
  • Date (this one is in the expanded field, and is the date that the webpage was published)

Now we have date retrieved to handle access date and we have date of publication for date. These are easy. We also have the URL/Website page that'll be created as soon as the datatype goes live. The question is what to do about the other ones. We have a publisher property and a few that could work for the work field, but a majority of websites we cite won't have items for the work and publisher, and it makes very little sense to create thousands of new items for these fields. This goes doubly for title, first name, and last name.

I propose that we create five new string properties: "First name (source)", "Last name (source)", "Title (source)", "Work (source)", and "Publisher (source)" that are to be used exclusively in the sourcing section for statements. When a publisher, work, or author has an item, these should be added in addition to those fields.

The reason I am proposing this is that if we have the fields cleanly lined up, we can easily import and export web citations to and from the Wikipedias. If the fields don't match up, it has to be done by hand, and really, letting bots do it would make much more sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Oppose the new string properties. Normal item-properties should be used. --77.239.53.3 19:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
So you think that it would be a good idea to create an item for every movie/book/video game review author, every news article title, etc.? That could wind up being hundreds of thousands, and very easily millions of items, assuming we eventually wind up using citations for all of the items. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought the plan was to make an item for each edition of a book and each article used as a ref? Littledogboy (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (oh, also not sure you should hide this kind of revisions, but don't know if there is a policy) Littledogboy (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
See my above comment. I'm actually not sure if "make an item for each edition of a book and each article used as a ref" was ever formally adopted, but it's a terrible idea considering that we have 14 million items to cite, and each item is going to have multiple citations. That would mean we'd wind up with an unmanageable number of items to make sourcing work. As to the revdel, I did it for Lydia_WMDE's sake. Email me if you want details. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sven, I don't know, but has you ever sourced claims? And I think Lydia can expess her concerns herself. --Succu (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In a talk at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Source items and supporting Wikipedia sources, reusability of references and the possibility to use Wikidata items as reusable references in Wikipedia were two benefits mentioned. There were concerns voiced over the overall number of items, which I understand today not is not a technical problem to handle in Wikidata, merely an interface issue. Littledogboy (talk) 21:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@Sven Manguard. "Make an item for each edition of a book and each article used as a ref" was formally adopted as guidelines in the Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/References_and_sources. The main reason is reusability inside Wikidata and perhaps in Wikipedia later if we accept to use Wikidata as reference library too and the only possibility to avoid mixing of data in the case of book editions. This problem was already exposed during the RfC.
"we have 14 million items to cite, and each item is going to have multiple citations". Efficient data import based on reference works can keep the number of references quite low: a good reference can be used dozen or hundred times. For example this article Atomic weights of the elements 2009 (IUPAC Technical Report) (Q13422885) can be used 300 times, this book edition CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (92nd edition) (Q11927173) around 15-25'000 times. Snipre (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We have properties for all of these except 'Work'. We probably have a property for 'work' too but I don't really know what a 'work' refers to in this context.
By having separate properties for given name and surname we can combine these to give a lot of names with a much smaller collection of items. Or use the text property. I have a proposal for a 'name' property with string datatype under consideration at the moment. Please go and comment there on this proposal.
Having an item datatype for 'Publisher' is not that onerous - these will tend to be reused quite a few times.
All in all I don't think we have much left to do. Filceolaire (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think I'm missing something here. We would have authors, publishers, and works without items? Why? And special properties for first and last names, to be filled in each time an author is used as a source? What does that accomplish? And language-less string datatypes for all these things? This really doesn't sound like data, and it would end up being generally unusable. Wikipedias and other sources don't want to import sources containing nothing more than a bunch of characters in some random language and script. --Yair rand (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I strongly oppose shaping any properties around what might be useful for the sister projects. --Yair rand (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Sven Manguard. "First name (source)", "Last name (source)",... And how do you want to specify a reference with several authors ? If I agree that the choice of family name (P734) and given name (P735) as item datatype is a bad one, you can't use directly string properties for author's names in the source section of a claim because you will mix names or you have to establish a strong policy about data input order to be able to extract later data in the client side. I propose you to create the lua code of the data extraction to understand the problem. Snipre (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Remember this is purely for web citations.
For citations to books and articles each book edition and each scientific article has it's own item linked separate items for authors and publishers
See Help:Sources. Filceolaire (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to discuss this structured and separately (maybe as RfC). Also people maitaning cite templates on enwiki should be notified about that discussion, as the intended target (i doubt) is "connectivity" of these two, thus it will be possible easily "convert" enwiki cite template citation to wikidata citation, but also to show wikidata citation as enwiki citation template citation. Jklamo (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Q3997868

When I try to add a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severance_package to the Italian version of the page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trattamento_di_fine_rapporto I get the following message: "Site link Trattamento di fine rapporto is already used by item Q3997868. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted?"

I don't understand the message nor the meaning of the page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3997868

These have been linked now but for future reference:
  • Each Wikidata Item has a unique number starting with Q
  • Each page also has a 'Label' in multiple different languages, though you will only see the Label for your own language
  • Each wikidata page lists the wikipedia pages for that item - only one per language.
  • If you try and add a page from Italian Wikipedia to a wikidata page and it is already on another wikidata page then you get this message telling you what page it is already on.
Hope this helps Filceolaire (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

I just went to the drop down menu for the delete tool and found that a new tool has been added there - 'Find Redirects'.

Are we going to have redirects (and persistent URLs) instead of deletions soon? Filceolaire (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Find redirects? Like the find redirects for aliases tool? Did you enable that in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets? --Yair rand (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess that is it. I did tick that tool but I this is the first time I've seen the tool in this menu. Filceolaire (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Multi-language URLs ?

Many organisations offer multiple language-specific versions of their official website (P856): www.cn.ca/en, www.cn.ca/fr, www.cn.ca/es, www.cn.ca/zh... Bot import of URLs from different WP will likely encounter many such conflicts. Are there plans for a multi-language URL data type? LaddΩ chat ;) 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not just make multiple official website claims with qualifier language of work or name (P407) and the appropriate language? --Izno (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Workaround at best; much extra complexity that requests would have to deal with - LaddΩ chat ;) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Requests have the option of ignoring the qualifiers and only getting the 'preferred' value (English page? minimal multi-lingual entry page?), avoiding all the complexity and all the extra info contained in that complexity. Filceolaire (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Why do you want to specify the language for a multiple languages website ? Just put the minimal address and let the reader to choose his appropriate language. In your example just put www.cn.ca.
The "minimal address" brings to some initial default language: the user can indeed look around so see if a language selector appears somewhere on the page... LaddΩ chat ;) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
And in the case of a source citation just have a look at Help:Sources Snipre (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I gather than there is no such type and no plans for one either - so import bots just have to discard specific language info and store something less usable? - LaddΩ chat ;) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion import bots shouldn't discard anything. They should import all the 'official web sites' then another bot can make a list of 'items with more than 1 official website' for users to check by hand. Then we can either tag URLs with language codes or delete or deprecate wrong values or whatever is appropriate. Filceolaire (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

a bug?

see [26] and [27]. What's wrong?--GZWDer (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain what's wrong? The two links alone are unfortunately not very useful. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
[28] says: (in English)
  • 09:45, 12 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+199)‎ . . Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189) ‎ (‎Created claim: Sandbox-String (P370): Property:P123) (current) [rollback 4 edits]
  • 09:45, 12 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+189)‎ . . Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189) ‎ (‎Created claim: Sandbox-String (P370): publisher (P123))
  • 09:44, 12 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+25)‎ . . Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189) ‎ (‎Added Chinese alias: Property:P188)
  • 09:44, 12 September 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+96)‎ . . Wikidata Sandbox (Q4115189) ‎ (‎Added Chinese aliases: lake inflows (P200), ISO 3166-2 (P300), exclave of (P500))

bold texts is the bug.--GZWDer (talk) 10:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah now I see what you mean. Ok this is indeed a bug. I filed it as bugzilla:54075. Thanks for the note. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for a gadget

Hi, in most of the local Wikipedia we came across with pages which are translated from other wiki like en.wiki but the creator forgot to add interwiki to his/her article.like it:Utente:Reza1615/Pages-Without-En-Interwiki or de:User:Reza1615/Pages-Without-En-Interwiki or fr:User:Reza1615/Pages-Without-En-Interwiki (I made these query in 2012 by sure most of them are solved)

My suggestion

would you please write a code which can highlight or add alarm icon to article's links in recent_changes (in locale wiki) which have one of these cases

  • xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/ in the text (API query params = { 'action': 'query', 'prop': 'extlinks', 'titles': PageTitle} )
  • for example english wikipedia in their text (usually people add these text as a source at the end of the page!)
  • Template:lang in the text

and they don't have any interwiki. I want to active it as a gadget for local wikis and users can find these articles easy :) Thank you for your time.Yamaha5 (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Test-Wikidata offers the new URL datatype

In preparation of next week's deployment to Wikidata.org, the Test-Wikidata now has the new version of the datatype URL deployed. If you have the time, we would appreciate if you tested it and let us know about errors and problems. The URL datatype should be a big step in allowing to introduce better sourcing and reliability of the content of Wikidata. --Denny (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have been testing it a little, and perhaps the input validation could be improved. At present it allows a value such as http://www, http://w, http://b to be entered. Danrok (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
From now on, blacklisted url is rejected. but some items needs blacklisted url, like TinyURL (Q1196499) itself. I think we should add the right of overriding the spamblacklist to autopatrollers.--GZWDer (talk) 04:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't that make it impossible for anybody else to edit that page? And also anybody in the clients who tries to edit pages who uses such a statement? Wouldn't it be easier to make exceptions in the meta-blacklist for the main-page of TinyURL (Q1196499). -- Lavallentalk(block) 05:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I see ftp://example.com is not supported, is this intentional? --FischX (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I only saw this now. For now we only enabled http, https and mailto if I understood it correctly. I filed a bug for ftp at bugzilla:54103. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
No protocol-relative links? --Yair rand (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. We need to discuss if/how to do this. I've filed bugzilla:54104 for it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Mapedia

Hi, I am currently discussing location data on Articles on the EN Wikipedia Teahouse. My name is Chris Thomas, and I represent Mapedia, which is a project I have been working on for some 3 years or so now. Our aim is to produce a map, with higher levels of context on location. By context I mean their history, art and culture. Not so much a map of shops, but more about historical sites, and sites of importance due to cultural events and so on.

To get our maps kick started, we were presented with the idea of featuring Wikipedia Articles on our map (giving full credit), in addition to our own data. We hope in turn to help drive Wikipedia, in a symbiotic manner, with our focus on a location based window onto information, whilst Wikipedia's is more texttual.

Mapedia is also a Wiki, though it is more centered on adding locations to a Map, and then describing those locations using sets of "Options", which define that location. So a Prehistoric location, could be filtered by Main Period, such as Iron Age, Bronze or Stonge Age. And then further by Stone Circles, Hoards, Henges, Hill Forts and so on. With Mapedia we wish to help people discover the World about them, and then to hopefully appreciate it, and interact with it. Think about it this way. Wikipedia may have 100 Articles on amazing things near where you live or grew up, and you may never know about them. Hopefully Mapedia will help expose you to that knowledge.

So, Wikipedia Article DO often have location data to allow placing them on a map. Even better many articles are well categorized in multiple overlapping cats. Again great, so we can feature these locations on our map, and use the cats they are within to add lots of filtering options, to allow users to see just what they wish. The "problem" we have are threefold.....

A. Many locations do not have Lat Long data, despite being clearly location centric, typically Articles on Hoards, Battles, Castles, Towns etc fit this bill
B. Man locations DO have location data in their Articles, clearly stating a single location. But an API call returns no location data
C. Some locations are not 100% suited to having a location stated for them, like Biographies. However, without a location we cannot display them on our map.

Item A, is just a matter of time and effort to remedy. B, is more technical, and I would like to ask guidance on why this is working in some cases, but not in others. And C, well, thats more subjective. One suggestion I have heard, is adding location data based on Birthplace, Place of Death or Location of Key Events in lifetime.

Any viewpoints here welcome.

Hi Chris.

You probably won't get a lot of responses here as mapping the values is another project (WikiMiniAtlas). You should check it out and see where you can work together. Wikidata is focussed on recording information we have on the other projects and putting it in semantic, machine readable, format.
Once wikidata is a bit more complete you will be able to do those searches using Wikidata properties, instead of categories.
We also want to have links to more complex geographical objects - country boundaries and river courses.

A. As wikidata imports LatLong info from all the wikipedias. This means that if any of these has LatLong data then it becomes available to all, and to you too via our proposed API. Other LatLong data will be added as we go along. We should have a better interface eventually, making it easier for people to add coordinates.
B. You should report technical problems on the Wikidata:Contact the development team page or on bugzilla.
C. People have a residence (P551). This property links to an 'item', which should have coordinates.

If a persons home isn't notable enough to have a item then this will probably link to the item for the borough or town. WikiVoyage has been talking about coordinates for places, for tourists so coordinates for these items may well get added. Property 'coordinate location (P625)' is available for anyone who wants to do add coordinates as a qualifier to Birthplace, Place of Death or Key Event properties. I'm sure someone said recently that the Farsi wikipedia (or was it Arabic) likes to have coordinates for place of burial. Filceolaire (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in Wikivoyage we do already have coordinates for places like points of interests, museums, or restaurants. What is being discussed now is whether it is possible to store these coordinates on Wikidata whereas single objects do not have enough notability on any Wikivoyage or Wikipedia project.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I missed that discussion. If we want to incorporate wikivoyage in wikidata then every listing has to have a Wikidata item. That is the only way wikidata can incorporate the structured data in the listings and the notability requirements will need to be rewritten accordingly. Each of these listings can then have a 'coordinate location (P625)' property with the coordinates for that item, ready for Chris to import into his map.
The "Wiki Loves Monuments" photo competition starts from lists of monuments. These need coordinates for the competitors to find them so (eventually) we should have coordinates for every listed monument, everywhere and photos too. Filceolaire (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I actually meant this discussion, in which you participated. Concerning WLM, indeed, we should after it is over (November or smth) discuss with all parties how we are going to import the lists to Wikidata, which lists are reliable (for instance, we are just having a discussion on the Russian Wikivoyage concerning the Russian lists, which should not be imported from the Russian Wikipedia under any circumstances), and just import them.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Speaker needed for Wikimedia CEE meeting

Heya folks :)

The upcoming Wikimedia CEE meeting is looking for a speaker to give a talk about Wikidata. Details here. Any takers? Please get in touch with me. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Eventually you can contact me directly (program organiser). Regards! --KuboF (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Access description using #property

Forgive me if I am overlooking some help page which explains how to use #property, but I would like to know if I can use #property to access the description field of an item. Specifically, I'd like to access the English description field from Portuguese Wikivoyage, so I can run some automatic checks for pages which are mistakenly linked to WP disambiguation pages. Can anyone help? Texugo (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not today, but that information can be identified by a Lua-module. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not up on Lua but I have asked one of the developers of voy:it:Modulo:Wikibase if he can add a function there. Or if anyone here can provide me with the code to insert there, I would be grateful. Texugo (talk) 15:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done: see voy:it:User talk:Ricordisamoa#Wikibase to access description fields? and voy:pt:Categoria:Artigos conectados a itens de desambiguação --Ricordisamoa 17:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have created a new page - Help:Sources/Items_not_needing_Sources - to list what items don't need source information. This is all based on my understanding and my ideas of what should be. Can people review and see if they agree. Any comments please take them to the talk page there. Filceolaire (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

or be bold and edit the page. It only needs to go to the talk page if others disagree and revert your change. Filceolaire (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a link to this on Help:Sources too. Filceolaire (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Data item for Special pages?

It would be nice and helpful to have interwiki links for pages like Special:Nearby. Is that something that can be set up via Wikidata? Or something we still need to maintain manually? (and if so, where do I put the interwikis?) Texugo (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

They are going to be managed automatically (via wgCanonicalSpecialPageName). --Ricordisamoa 18:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons is coming

Heya folks :)

I just posted a message to the Village Pump on Commons about this. We're planning to enable interwiki links via Wikidata for Commons on 23rd of September. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Will it be using the Commons category property? --  Docu  at 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
No that is not used since this isn't always how it is going to be linked. For example there is a page China and a category China on Commons and the Wikipedias. They are handled in different items but the property might be used in both items atm. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The reason for this is that namespace=0 at Commons is marginally used and generally outdated.
Would People's Republic of China (Q148) be able to link to Commons:Category:China ? --  Docu  at 12:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes possible. However that's not what is currently done on Commons with interwiki links in the wikitext. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It is being done that way for, e.g., Commons:Category:Jimmy Wales. --  Docu  at 12:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. It's inconsistent then. Time to clean up? :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
What makes things complicated is that some users prefer to link to Commons main namespace while others prefer categories. Also, there are much more categories than galleries on Commons so that very often the only possible link is Wikipedia article - Commons category. I would think the most convenient solution would be to allow one sitelink per namespace, but I understand that it is not on the agenda. In the medium run, using Wikidata-like properties on Commons may make much of Commons' category scheme obsolete, so what how we are to do things may depend on what exactly is planned for Commons. --Zolo (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The current proposal is at Commons:Commons:Wikidata for media info. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The wikipedia articles normally link to commons categories (by templates proper to each Wikipedia), and commons categories link to wikipedai pages. But if a commons page is present, it may have an additional link; why not make cages for two commons links, one to the category, one to the page, if both exist: commons=Item and commons = Category:Item ? What Wikipedia's can, wikidata can too.--Havang(nl) (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Well the issue is that there are items for the category and page for Wikipedia already for example. They are describing a different thing. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Are we going to update our notability policy again? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Lydia: Adding sitelinks to Commons from Wikidata items is not what is proposed at Commons:Commons:Wikidata for media info. The proposal for 'wikidataisation' of Commons is based on creating a new 'media info' entity type for Commons files then using properties to describe those files, including links to wikidata items. Properties could link a file info page to two or three (or more) wikidata items, eventually replacing the categories they are linked to now (as Zolo's comment above). This is quite different from adding a bunch of sitelinks which can only link to one item. I guess we will find out what you are going to do when you do it :(
A while ago I asked you (on the the 'Contact the development team' page) about developer priorities - "What are they?" and "Could we influence them?" This makes it look like the answer to my questions are "We are not telling you" and "No". Is that really the case?
I guess this plan means Commons is the top priority for the development team. As I said in my post that time my top priority is the ability to click on an infobox or source template in wikipedia and have a visual editor screen come up where you can edit wikidata. This will mean that instead of wikipedia editors sitting on the sidelines complaining wikidata isn't good enough, they can get stuck in to improving it. Is this anywhere on your priority list? Please? Filceolaire (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 Support --Rippitippi (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I've updated Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons, there are some points to be discussed there, though. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 01:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry then I misunderstood you. The proposal I linked to is the _proposal_ for the long-term plan. (There for everyone to comment on...) We can however get a few short-term wins enabling phase 1 for Commons independent of this. This is something people have been bugging us about a lot. And the other important thing right now for the Wikipedias is the URL datatype which is scheduled for next week. I am aware that you would put priorities differently right now but others disagree ;-) We have to balance quite a few stakeholders. Hope that clarifies it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying I haven't bugged you enough. Really? Or is it that I'm not a 'stakeholder'? Wouldn't it be better to have an open discussion about priorities rather than basing them on 'people' bugging you? If we can't have that then could you at least tell us what the priorities are?
As you have seen from the discussion above there are some real questions about how to implement links to Commons and very little apparent benefit over what we have done already using the 'Commons Category' property. No one is proposing putting infoboxes on commons pages. Sitelinks to Wikispecies however we could do something with - if the priority is to add links to something quickly. Filceolaire (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You are a stakeholder. But you must understand that there are many many many more. It might not always happen the way you want it. But that is the same for the others as well. As for little apparent benefit: No. People are rightfully complaining that since Wikidata took over language links on Wikipedia they are not being updated anymore on Commons. This is bad and needs to be fixed which we're doing with this step. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we, on the community side, have to stay patient with the developers. Just because we can get a majority for some change in the roadmap, doesn't mean that the developers should abandon what their working on right now. It is easier for us to work on something else while we wait for our favorite feature, than for the developers to change the course of the ship everytime somebody yells "island". --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tobias for understanding. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm one of those people bothering the developers and I'm quite happy to hear this. Commons category (P373) is just an intermediate solution, I proposed a new property to really make use of this. Looking a bit further in the future: Once phase2 gets enabled on Commons we can start doing the really cool things like automatic multilingual introductions of the category based on data from Wikidata. Good stuff. Multichill (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I am a little confused: OK to create links from Wikidata to commons but is there an objective to create an item for each file uploaded in Commons ? First this will lead to an important increase of items then we will loose the unicity of wikidata: right now there are already some big problems when looking for one item due to homonymy but as we can have several images/maps/pictures of th same object in Commons this will be painful to identify the item on the subject from the multiple commons files about the subject. Just an example: type Barack Obama in the search engine of Wikidata and you will get 163 items and now imagine to have all the files from Commons added to this list (see here the number of commons files).
We had a similar problem with books: there are a work item and several edition items. We can deal with that because the number of books is quite small and until now we have the constraint of an edition item can be created only if used as reference in Wikidata but for Commons files we will have a larger problem: for every person in wikidata we can have dozens of pictures. Is there a plan to create a new entitytype after Q and P ? Snipre (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Long question, short answer: No. Longer answer: Not right now, per file metadata could be stored in it's own wikibase database running on Commons. That's several steps ahead of us, first we just start with linking pages (galleries) and categories like we did with Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. Multichill (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Related, I wrote down my ideas at Commons:User:Multichill/Commons Wikidata roadmap. Multichill (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As I understand you plan is to link Commons categories with Wikipedia categories using Wikidata interwiki mechanism. But current practice is linking Commons category with Wikipedia article page. For example see commons:Category:Luna 9. I think we need save this practice. Gallery pages on Commons usually outdated, its are created for less number of pages. Some users in ruwiki suggest delete gallery pages at all. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
See Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#Topic main category which should fix your concern. --Izno (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

To take care of items for Commons Gallery namespace, we might need a new property to link them to articles: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#Main_Commons_gallery_topic. --  Docu  at 14:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Article about "tick (parasite)" doesn't link/list all languages

(Reposting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#article_about_.22tick_.28parasite.29.22_doesn.27t_link.2Flist_all_languages). John Broughton (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, in my daily browsing of wikipedia I stumbled on the english article about "Tick".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick

I wanted to read it also in my native language (Italian), but I couldn't find the link in the listed languages on the left. I thought it was impossible and indeed I was right; here it is:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodida

I understand it might be a matter of orders, but the scientific name is the same (Ixodida) and in a casual conversation when you say "tick" in english you means "zecca" in Italian. One more thing. As you can see the Italian version is somehow linked to very few other languages who form a separate group from the others with two exceptions, Spanish and Portuguese. These languages lead to different pages.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodoidea and http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodida

http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrapato and http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ixodida

But if you have them checked, they are really saying the same things. Could it be that one was written for Spain and the other for Latin America in one case. Portugal and Brazil in the other case?

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.121.64 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I would guess that there is some difference between Ixodoidea and Ixodida. One looks like it might be mites as a whole (Ixodoidea) and the other the taxon of ticks (Ixodida). That's just a brief glance though. --Izno (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
species:Ixodida agrees with you. Mdann52 (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This is an example of a HUGE and devastating problem with the whole project of using Wikidata for interwiki links. Q10304508 relates to the order Ixodida, and links to seven language articles. Q82645 relates to the suborder (or superfamily in the English WP) Ixodoidea, and links to about fifty language articles. For the integrity of Wikidata these must be kept separate. For users of Wikipedia this is a perverse and wanton determination to be unhelpful.
It's not just biological taxa, either. Consider Q717996 Cain & Abel, with 23 language links. Q205365 Cain has 34. There may be a few languages in both lists - I haven't checked - but in most of those 50 Wikipedias you're going to see only half the interwiki links you might reasonably have expected. Then there's Q4487785 "Flag and coat of arms of Selangor". It is clear that the ru link ru:Флаг Селангора should be removed, as that article is only about the flag, not the coat of arms; but I'm not about to remove it as that would be removing utility for the sake of theoretical purity and in this case I don't think there's likely to be a ru article about the coat of arms of Selangor.
So what's to be done? I'm hoping that somebody will direct me to the well-established project that is tackling that problem (I don't know where to look for such a thing: nothing in the task forces seems to match it, and I guess I'm talking about changes in mediawiki, not in Wikidata). My solution would be that interwiki links are generated not just from those on the item page, but if there isn't a link to a particular language, and if the item has or is the target of a part/whole property like 'parent taxon', 'language family', 'is a part of', that it would go up and down the links looking for an item that had a link to the language. But I've no idea how you would limit it, how you would decide whether to go up or down, or what you'd do about performance (I guess you'd need to crawl the tree regularly or on every change and cache the results in the database). And it's also going to mean that when new properties are added they are considered for whether they are relevant (actually the obvious solution to that is to have a mandatory flag on a property which says whether or not it is an inclusion property). --ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, all of these problems have already been discussed extensively aroud here. There is one long term solution and one short term (which will stay in the long term): The short term one : use old style interwikis exactly as before. The long term one, accepted by community in a RfC : allow links to sections of articles into interwikis. It will wait that the dev team wimplements this and it's not in their shortlist (I guess they want to improve intergrity of the database before, as it could become messy). TomT0m (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, TomTOm. I hoped they had been; but I'm not enormously cheered by the solutions you give. The short term solution is clearly no worse than what we had before Wikidata, I suppose, but because of Wikidata people who try to fix a problem encounter strange (to them) obstacles, as in the case that began this query. But it seems to me that the long-term solution will only solve some cases: those where the "part" is a sufficiently salient - or divisible - part to have a subsection. You might assume that if another language WP had made an article on it, it would automatically be so. But in the particular cases I listed above, none of the seven articles on Ixodida has a section on Ixodoidea (half of them don't even mention the term); and of the 23 articles on Cain & Abel, precisely 1 (enwiki) has sections labelled "Cain" and "Abel". The third example does better: two of the three articles have separate sections on "Flag" and "Emblem", and the third article is only the flag anyway.
I can see that this fix, when it comes, will help. But I hope nobody is under the impression that it solves the problem. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
TomTom: Actually, "accepted by community in a RfC : allow links to sections of articles into interwikis. It will wait that the dev team wimplements this and it's not in their shortlist" is not the fix that was agreed. Only full pages as redirects to a section was the community preference. Which both helps and hurts what ColinFine is saying. :)
ooops, I forgot that, of course. It's been a while :) TomT0m (talk)
Colin: The reason why we only allow links of the sort is because each item must be about a unique topic, because there's no other reason that magic like infoboxes and queries would work. It's not our fault (not sure it's anyone's fault—if anything, notability bites us in the butt again :D) that Wikipedias don't have those terms... However, being able to link to redirects should fix the problem, no? --Izno (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
This is what we call the 'Bonnie and Clyde problem'. Note that allowing links to redirects will mean the page on 'Cain' will have links to pages on 'Cain and Abel' (unless the wikipedias with those pages delete the redirect) but the links from the 'Cain' pages will end up on the redirect page, where no one will see them, rather than on the 'Cain and Abel' pages. This is just as well, otherwise you would end up with links to pages on 'Cain' and to pages on 'Abel' on the 'Cain and Abel' pages.
In the meantime the Wikidata item on 'Cain and Abel' uses the 'has part' property to link to the 'Cain' and 'Abel' items and they use the 'part of' property to link back. Filceolaire (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Izno and Filceolaire. I do understand the reason for unique mapping, Izno: that's why I talked about the tension between utility and theoretical purity.
Are you talking about some sort of redirect mechanism in Wikidata (or its interwiki mechanism), or are you saying that those Wikipedias which lack an entry for 'Cain' will need a redirect creating for it, which might then be directed to a suitable section of 'Cain and Abel' where one exists, or to the whole article if it doesn't? Either way, that sounds fine for the reader once the link has been set up, but I fear that the process of setting one up will become even more arcane than it is now. (It's not in principle arcane: you pick the link in Wikipedia, which takes you to the Wikidata item, where you add the new linkj. But in practice, if it's not already there, it's usually just this problem, or a mistaken duplication, neither of which is easy for a novice to understand, never mind fix.)
I know that 'Cain and Abel' have that relation to 'Cain' and 'Abel', and suggested making use of it programmatically. But unless we expect users who want to jump between language wikis to start hanging around in Wikidata and poking around here, it's pretty useless to them. --ColinFine (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not theoretical purity, Imho it's a practical aswer to a problem : interwikis are messy and error prone, sometimes odd. Having a strong constraint like that is a way to find conflicts and to solve them, and I think it's the main reason the solution proposed by community is not implemented yet. About the know not so useful links, it's a question of time and discussion on how they will find their usefulness. A lua template could for example extract them and diplay them in the article in a way that pleases the local Wikipedia community (when Wikidata will be ready for that technically, hopefully soon.) TomT0m (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Colin: The latter. But we'll see. :) --Izno (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear . When I talked about redirects I meant Wikipedia redirects. Wikipedias with a page on 'Cain and Abel' would create pages for 'Cain' and for 'Abel' which redirect to the 'Cain and Abel' page. The Wikidata item for 'Cain' would have a sitelink to the 'Cain' redirect page on that wikipedia. All the Wikipedias which have 'Cain' pages would see a sitelink to that 'Cain' redirect in their sitelinks. Anyone clicking on it would be taken to the 'Cain and Abel' page on that wikipedia. You can't do this at the moment as the software won't let you create sitelinks to redirect pages. Filceolaire (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much clearer. --ColinFine (talk) 19:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Please undelete Q14916523


Really weird byte figures

I've been seeing some very weird byte figures in recent edits. For example, edits where only content was removed show several hundred bytes added, or this tiny addition generating +4000 bytes. What's going on here? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The deployment of some of the backend for badges means that sitelinks now take up more space. See WD:Contact the development team#Change in sitelinks structure. --Yair rand (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Oversight nomination

Hi all, I've nominated myself as an oversighter at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Stryn 2. --Stryn (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Q2016193 and Q2530169

must be merged--Oursana (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

→ ← Merged: Q2016193. --Stryn (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To be merged

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q9989183 should be merged into https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5189380. --Urjanhai (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

→ ← Merged. --Stryn (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Twinkle

Is it possible to have Twinkle activated as a gadget on wikidata? Or do you warn people differently? (BTW: more vandal-fighters are needed imho...) Trijnstel (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

To be clear: I use Twinkle on the English Wikipedia to warn vandals on their user talk, but if I should do it on another way here please say so. Trijnstel (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
FYI: There's the following script here: User:Bene*/userwarn.js. Possibly a bit simpler than Twinkle (which I don't really know), but sufficient to put a warning on a user page with a few simple clicks. --YMS (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, perfect. I will use that one then. Thank you! Trijnstel (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert not possible

Can someone else revert this change [29]? I see only an error (German text: Es wurde eine Längenbeschränkung für den Sprachcode „hi“ ausgelöst. * Es wurde eine Längenbeschränkung für den Sprachcode „ckb“ ausgelöst. * Es gibt {{PLURAL:1|eine Beschränkungsverletzung|Beschränkungsverletzungen}} für die {{PLURAL:1|Beschreibung|Beschreibungen}} „विकिमीडिय…; له‌ به‌ریتانیا…“ für {{PLURAL:1|den Sprachcode|die Sprachcodes}} „hi; ckb“.). Maybe a sort of filter active? Holger1959 (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reverting it using the rollback function was no problem at all for me. --YMS (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
good. I found a similar problem in the archive Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/08#constraint_violation (it seems there is a length restriction for descriptions for normal users, see [30]). Holger1959 (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Enlace

Como puedo hacer para enlazar la página en español "Detector de Fallas deArco AFD" con la página en inglés "Arc-fault circuit interrupter"

✓ Done see arc-fault circuit interrupter (Q132172). Holger1959 (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Özgüven in Turkish vs Self-Confidence in English

Both subjects refer to exactly same meaning if you search for either dictionaries or philological resources so we should merge these two topics.

Sincerely...

Merged. I rely on you :) --Infovarius (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong link to the other language

A page in Russian wiki http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A1%D0%A0 is linked to this page in English wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_farming. However, the right page to link in English wiki is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_USSR.

Please, help fix this if you have appropriate privileges and skills I lack.

✓ Done --Michgrig (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page English Wrinkle article should be added to other article with same subject.

Good day,

I do apologize if this is not the proper way to report this but I thought I could bring this to your attention. The English Wikipedia page Wrinkle - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrinkle_(skin) -. Should be link to the List of language of - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ride -. I am not sure how to find the Article number(Sorry!). I am fluent in both English and french and Wrinkle is Ride in french. They even share an image of a Wrinkle finger after taking a bath.

I apologies again if this is not the correct way to proceed but I think the English article could be merge/added to the list of language of the french one.

Have a good day!

Best regards!

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.56.181 (talk)

Thanks for reporting! There seems to be interwiki conflict on the Spanish Wikipedia; I'll take a look at it. The Anonymouse (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The conflict has been resolved. wrinkle (Q349185) is specifically for wrinkles of the skin, while wrinkle (Q9069454) is for any fold or crease in a surface. For some reason, no other Wikipedia other than Spanish has an article for the latter. The Anonymouse (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss. --Infovarius (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Updating and reorganizing list of Properties

We have properties divided in 12 sections on property proposal page WD:PP but list of properties WD:P is divided into 8 sections. So it confuses where property should be listed after creation. Both should be divided in same ways.

It is also noted that List of Properties are not Updated regularly when new property created, so its difficult to find which property is created and which not. (I myself proposed created property in past by looking at WD:P) I also suggest to create list of pending and rejected/deleted properties same 12 section way, so one not propose again by just looking at list. Atleast someone please update WD:P. Regards,-Nizil Shah (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the deletion of Q14916811?

  • Q14916811 was an item about a "Human Rights Day" in South Africa, "celebrated on 21 March, in remembrance of the Sharpeville massacre which took place on 21 March 1960. This massacre occurred as a result of protests against the Apartheid regime in South Africa.".

It was deleted as a duplicate of:

  • Q206206 "Human Rights Day", celebrated annually across the world on 10 December. "The date was chosen to honor the United Nations General Assembly's adoption and proclamation, on 10 December 1948, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first global enunciation of human rights and one of the first major achievements of the new United Nations"

Both quotes above are from en:Human Rights Day.

Deletion occurred without prior discussion or listing for deletion. --  Docu  at 23:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That item isn't deleted... TCN7JM 23:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay nevermind. Now I will look. TCN7JM 23:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the deletion is valid. Similar to May Day discussed above, the days share an article on Wikipedia (at least the English one), and there is no difference aside from a date variance. TCN7JM 23:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That no discussion occurred is not problematic for uncontroversial cases like duplicates. Also, I would like it if you would first contact the admin in question rather than posting at Project chat... and really, this should be posted at WD:AN rather than here, for the second time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue is, are they really duplicates? From what I'm seeing here, is that we have Human Rights Day, celebrated on two different dates, originated from two different events. The only things in common between the two are the name and the value (human rights) being celebrated. I think two entities should have two items. --Wylve (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd keep it a single item on the grounds of w:en:Human Rights Day#Date variance; there is a single Wikipedia article. However, it may be necessary to later add a "regional variation" property sometime in the future to qualify the claim on when it occurs, because it may be important to note it based on context.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Swedish title of the corresponding page is "Internationella dagen för mänskliga rättigheter". That is completely impossible as a label for something that is celebrated in SAR in remembrance of Sharpeville. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The French title of the corresponding page is "Journée internationale des droits de l'homme". That is completely impossible as a label for something that is celebrated in South Africa in remembrance of Sharpeville. Ljubinka (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The test for whether an item should be split (in my opinion) is if the item can be described using wikidata properties on one page. These two events cannot both be described on the same page because they have different dates and they commemorate different items. They should not have been merged and they should (in my opinion) be split. Filceolaire (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, celebrating a day on different dates might not necessarily cause it to need two seperate items, I guess (without finding a valid example spontaneously). However, in this case I don't think they can be handled in one. As articles like en:Human Rights Day say, the 10th of December is celebrated in some countries or by some organisations as Human Rights Day to honor the UN adoption and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In South Africa, a Human Rights Day is celebrated on 21st of March in remembrance of the Sharpeville massacre. That's simply two totally different events, only coincidentally carrying the same name. So I don't think both days can be put into one item. If notability criteria 2 or 3 are met for South African Human Rights Day (I'm not completely sure about this, all I know is that no. 1 is not, there's no article about it in any Wikipedia as far as I can see, and there was no sitelink in the deleted item), there should be an own item for it. --YMS (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's only in English they have the same name. The Swedish name is refering to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Q7813), not to "human rights" in general. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

We now have oversighters!

Today User:Ajraddatz and I were elected as Wikidata's first local oversighters. We thank the community for its overwhelming support, and the bureaucrats and stewards for fulfilling the requests quickly.

We are working on setting up a central way of receiving requests, but in the meantime we can be reached through Special:EmailUser or on the #wikimedia-wikidata channel. Please do not post requests onwiki or in a public channel, but in private communication to us. In emergencies, stewards are still allowed to oversight information, which we can then later review. --Rschen7754 04:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Email address for oversight

We now have an email address: oversight@wikidata.org. It is an OTRS queue that both Ajraddatz and I have access to. --Rschen7754 01:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

updated the news. congrats.--DangSunM (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a view to see e.g. label in all languages?

[Disclaimer: I don't know the correct terminology, bear with me.] Often items (I mean the Q12345 thingies) here contain closely related but incorrect interwiki links and there is confusion between languages that makes untangling the mess even harder. A multilingual view of a property (e.g. label, desc or alias) of an item would help. Is there such a view? Palosirkka (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as a gadget ("labelLister") to be activated in your preferences. Then there's an additional tab on each item page next to the history link that opens a popup with all labels and descriptions. --YMS (talk) 11:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
And it also shows aliases. Very useful tool, I would say. --Stryn (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow and thanks for the instant answers! Sorry for being a difficult customer but is there a way to do that without JavaScript? :-/ Palosirkka (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Most likely not. You'd have to call the Wikidata:API manually (which is doable, but not convenient) or read the page source code, where there are the values, but only in javascript variables ;). --YMS (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. Palosirkka (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The API provides read-only interfaces to the plain data like this: [31]. Just change the item ID at the end of the URL.Not really convenient but works.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not half bad, thanks alot! I'll be putting that to use. Palosirkka (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
That is so cool that Q12345 is Count Von Count from Sesame street. Mwuh ha ha ha ha haaaa. Filceolaire (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

ATA Carnet

I can't add http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnet_ATA to the list of articles about ATA Carnet.

You couldn't add it because it was already being used on another item, which was a duplicate of this one. I have merged the items and deleted the extra. TCN7JM 12:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

URL datatype is here

Heya folks :)

We just deployed new code and I am really happy to tell you that the URL datatype is finally here now. Wohoooo! I heard the first properties with the URL datatype have already been created. Maybe someone can link them here. I hope you will be able to make good use of it. Please let me know of any issues you find.

Additionally we had to deploy a breaking change to the API. Most bots and other tools should already be fixed but there might be some left that need a small change. For more details about this please see this email by Daniel: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-tech/2013-September/000296.html

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

reference URL (P854) and Sandbox-URL (P855). --Yair rand (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Also official website (P856). (Note that there was some dispute when this was proposed about what the scope of the property would be, which wasn't resolved.) --Yair rand (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused, what is the difference between reference URL (P854) and official website (P856)? First ones should not be official ones?? --Stryn (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The same happened with Geographic coordinates; we should re-evaluate project proposals when a new datatype is available. The sooner one of them gets deleted, the better. --Ricordisamoa 05:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
My thinking: official website (P856) would be used to indicate that www.microsoft.com is the official website of Microsoft. reference URL (P854) would be used in things like citations. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, and this is also what were proposed: "URL should be used for internet urls as references". --Stryn (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
There is a "full text available at" property" proposed at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work. I think it could be used instead of URL. The meaning is clearer than "URL" and I do not see the point of having a separate properties for references. --Zolo (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
It make sense for a reference like Population 31.12.1971, communes and parishes (Q14878365). But I have doubts for statements who only have been available on the web. -- Lavallentalk(block) 07:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
We might want to use them to indicate whether the target is a website of the entity, or whether the entity is a website itself. There would probably be some confusing grey areas, though. --Yair rand (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Congrats team, yet another important step.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomT0m (talk • contribs).
About the official website (P856). Couldn't that just be reference URL (P854) with qualifier "official website" (don't think we have a Q for that yet)? Multichill (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Technically we could do with one datatype and one property, but it is easier to maintain separate properties and prevent spam with separate properties. -- Lavallentalk(block) 06:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The colon in a url is encoded as : when it's used so it doesn't work as an external link. For example, http://example.org will become http://example.org. Is this intentional? See w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Import URL from Wikidata. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. We're looking into it. This is indeed wrong. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Filed as bugzilla:54312. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Which property for ...

I want to state that this manifesto : GNU Manifesto (Q11275) is about this project : GNU (Q44571). Is there a fitting property ? TomT0m (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The closest that fits is movement (P135). "about" is a really scary relation. Is there anything more specific that we could use as a possible property to propose? --Izno (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
We really need something to describe the subject of a document. TomT0m (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think 'key event' would be appropriate on the 'GNU' item for linking to the 'GNU manifesto' item. Not sure about the other way round. Filceolaire (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we might need several relation to describe the relations beetween a document and what he describes : a domain relation would for example describe that a math textbook is about maths, a describes or documents relation would state that a book is a manual on a specific technology or describes a specific building, defines to state that a document has been the first one to define one topic, eg. Alan Turing. In this case the document is both a kind of advertisement and description document in the domain of free softawres ? TomT0m (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

place properties

Differences between Property:P540 and Property:P766? And also, the WD:P page seems not to be updated. --79.40.79.94 18:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The second one should exist, the first one not (Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#venue_.28P540.29_or_location_.28P766.29) --Nightwish62 (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No Wikipedia articles about monarch offices

I've noticed that in most or all languages there are no articles about the office of king/queen/monarch of a given country. Titles like "Queen of the United Kingdom" or "King of France" redirect to articles like "Monarchy of the United Kingdom" or "List of monarchs of France". Given that, what should we put under the Wikidata property "office held" for monarchs? Under Elizabeth II we have office held = Monarch of the United Kingdom, but Monarch of the United Kingdom only has one linked Wikipedia page, and that's a redirect. Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand the rules, you can create some types of items even if they don't have linked Wikipedia pages. This is probably one of those situations.--Cattus (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

How to add "dimension" to a geographic location?

I was happy to see "dimension" at Data_model#Geographic_locations, it is exactly what Wikivoyage needs to show maps at the right zoom level.

BUT it does not seem to be usable, for instance I don't see how to add "dimension" to Paris (Q90) or Saint John the Baptist Church, Penistone (Q7401481)...

Am I doing something wrong? Is it not approved yet? Is it just not implemented yet? Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess for map visualisation purposes the 'dimension' and 'precision' can be derived from the other claims of an item (e.g. Paris is a <city> , and then all 'city'-claims can have a fixed scale:xxx or dimension) 139.63.60.122 08:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What do if bot generates huge number of invalid claims?

Hello, interesting situation: bot generates huge number of invalid claims. Botmaster does not want improve the bot and continue bad claims generation. Administrators ignore request for bot blocking. What must I to do in this situation? Discussions: User talk:Multichill#P910 errors, Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#BotMultichill. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Happens all the time. Here, correct the mistakes or ignore it. On Wikipedia, do not use claims from Wikidata that does not fit. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Ivan, please stop soapboxing behind my back with exaggerated and false claims. Multichill (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Multichill, sorry, your message is too complex for my English knowledge. I ask you stop the invalid claim creation 4 times, there is no reaction. Now I am interesting that rules/consensuses exists for this case. For example in ruwiki in case of conflict/non-consensual bot`s edits botmaster must stop bot, discuss the problem and start it after consensus reached. Is there same rule in Wikidata? — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
To Lavallen: problem is not about single mistake, that can be corrected by hands. Number of invalid claims is too large for human correction and too complex for bot`s correction. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I know, I have to check ~2500 P131-claims "imported from" nlwp. Some of the most complex, have I fixed manually, the rest will I check by bot. -- Lavallen (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Q2712858

I think maybe this needs to be broken up into a bunch of different items even if they are all an instance of (P31):list of minor biblical figures, A–K (Q2712858).

Or am I missing something? Filceolaire (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Why ? it's a class of biblical figures. Maybe there is articles of biblical figures who could be instances of this item. Of course we can also create items for individual biblical figures but this would not be a split of the item. TomT0m (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be and it should be. Look at the sitelinks. The different Wikipedias are describing totally different persons, only some are a list of biblical characters. That probably happened as someone created an article about character X, interwiki-linked it to "list of biblical figures#X", and at some point that anchor link was dropped. I had the same issue for playboy models recently, it's not a problem exlusive to religion ;). --YMS (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, lists are not classes. Treating them as classes, something we have been doing, is something that we should not do. we should be splitting lists and not using them as classes. But yes, we should split them out per YMS. --Izno (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I missed the fact it was a list item. (another side note : it's weird lists can be such a problem, I don't really understand why.). Is there a list of lists items without is a list of statements somewhere ? This could be very useful to sort that out. TomT0m (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
They have such issues because the smaller wikis will tend to link pages to anchor links of the lists on usually EN.WP where the EN.WP equivalent isn't notable. It's a rather common phenomenon, especially for lists of fiction-related items. It's basically just the general case of the Bonny and Clyde problem. --Izno (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we should update our list article policy somehow. Is there a list of list articles linked to non list articles somewhere ? TomT0m (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Tom T0m:list of lists of lists (Q957) Filceolaire (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Izno: In many cases lists are combined with text describing the (class of) items included in the list. These list articles can (in my opinion) be considered to be classes. In this case the en and pt sitelinks to lists of minor biblical characters. The other language articles about particular minor biblical characters should, in my opinion, each have their own item with 'instance of:list of minor biblical character' (lets change the label to get rid of "list of"), 'bible verse:"verse number", 'father:<item>', 'son of:<item>'. OK? Filceolaire (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
✓ Done Label now simply "minor biblical figure": list of minor biblical figures, A–K (Q2712858). LaddΩ chat ;) 19:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Reverted (please wait for discussion next time). I agree that sometimes they include text describing the list of items. People should make a decision whether a particular page is more a list or an article. If it's more an article, those should be split. (You're unlikely to find this to be the case, but feel free to surprise me. :). In the general though, most pages linked to lists, besides the problem of fictional redirects, are mostly list articles. Calling them classes actually hurts us, as I suspect that it will look odd to make a query for minor biblical figures for a list page, which will presumably go away at some point in the future (to be replaced by Wikidata!).... Do your due diligence and make a new item if you really think it's important to make a class for those items. In most cases, I haven't seen a need to. --Izno (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It's also inconsistent with all the pages that have both the class of item in existence (e.g. planet) and a list of planets. Leave list items to be list items. It will help us in the long run, I suspect. --Izno (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Same as ?

First a description of my use case : function (Q3075154) (mathematical functions for newbies) is just another point of view describing function (Q11348) (mathematical functions). I could use same as, but this relation does not exists. should we create it ? TomT0m (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A real sameAs imply handling and following URIs to external sites. We are not there yet. 109.247.173.44 21:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oversight nomination

This is a notice to inform the community that I have nominated myself for oversight at Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Oversight/Sven Manguard 2. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Call for blogs

Hey there. I only just recently learned that there are a few people out there like Magnus Manske and GerardM that have been blogging regularly about Wikidata or aspects of Wikidata. I'd really love to get a list of Wikidata blogs (and could use the URLs of Magnus Manske's and GerardM's blogs). If you know of any, please drop them below. If you know of any blogs that cover a lot of things and happen to have a good post about Wikidata, I'll take those too. Please feel free to scrape the weekly summaries for these, as chances are I've missed a few from there. Thanks! Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

GerardM's blog is ultimategerardm.blogspot.ch. Magnus' blog is magnusmanske.de, plus he's been guest author for at least one post on the WMDE blog (The Wikidata tool ecosystem). That's pretty much anything I'm aware of, and even Google did not really put more at the first glance. Maybe the Wikidata Twitter account is worth following if you want to be up to date with this kind of stuff, or WD:Press coverage of course. --YMS (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

New search backend on testwikidata

A new search backend (Elastic Search with Cirrus) has been enabled on http://test.wikidata.org for testing. This should hopefully help fix quite a few of the remaining search issues here. It'd be awesome if you could give it a go and report issues you find. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks good regarding bugzilla:42234, from my quick test. No improvement on bugzilla:46251, though. And after each search, the result page proposes to create the page "<whateverisearched>", though following the link to edit of course does not work (no matter if I searched "asdf" or "Q877987878"). --YMS (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for testing! Can you post a link to the search results page that gives you that non-working link? I get offered to create a new item and it seems fine. bugzilla:46251 unfortunately indeed won't be fixed by this. It needs fixes in another part (the entity selector). --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, seems to be a translation issue. I just switched to English to post the original wording, and couldn't reproduce it any more. When using German interface, every search results page contains the message "Erstelle die Seite „Test“ in diesem Wiki." (or whatever I searched, of course). --YMS (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
PS: So this possibly isn't related to the new search at all, just the test wiki not properly set up in this detail. --YMS (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a message that the Wikidata community overrides in MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new. Perhaps it's possible to handle this in the software. I am not sure how easy it is to do. Aude (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

fr:Pastafarisme should be interwiki linked with en:Flying Spaghetti Monster but wikidata blocks it

There's no link from French wikipedia to English Wikipedia relative to the en:Flying Spaghetti Monster. When one tries to establish a link it is blocked. Can this be rectified?Thank you. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are basically two topics, and consequently two items: Q14397660 is about Pastafarianism as a "parodic religion", Q12044 is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster as its deity. They can't be merged logically, as they are not the same thing, and technically because there are some Wikipedias covering both subjects in separate articles.
The sad side of it is of course what you're said: Now e.g. the French and the English Wikipedia don't link to each other in this field, because they decided to handle the topic from different sides. This is a common problem (often refered to here as the "Bonny and Clyde problem", as some Wikipedias have an article about "Bonny and Clyde" and some do have two articles, about Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow). Perhaps there should be something like a loose interwiki link property saying "If a project has no sitelink here, display interwiki link for item X instead, possibly marked in a special way". Perhaps this is not a good idea, and/or has been discussed somewhere already, I don't know. --YMS (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Save for esperanto, I'd merge, no point keeping two separate items. The systematic solution agreed is to include sitelinks to redirects. Littledogboy (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This is illogical. Let the various wikis cover the topics in their respective ways and allow wikilinks between them. I've solved this problem for now by reverting to the old and more accommodating system of fr:Pastafarisme and en:Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both articles are essentially covering the same topic. A rose by any other name is still a rose. OmniArticleEditor (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking for Java Script developer to work on Wikidata and other things

Heya folks :)

Wikimedia Deutschland is looking for a software developer with a focus on frontend development with Java Script to work on Wikidata among other things. It'd be lovely to see many applications from here. If you have any questions about the position please contact Abraham at abraham.taherivand@wikimedia.de --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Does anybody understand why the article shows a wrong interwiki (Turkish) link despite the Wikidata item being correct?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Because the Turkish link is in the page source. --Stryn (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like I am really stupid, failing to check the most obvious thing. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Should have spotted myself - I did not check properly either. Perhaps Bearcat misunderstood my comment on the talk page when making their change on 30th Sept 2012. I have removed it - thanks for your help. Is it ever necessary to override Wikidata like that? If not perhaps the facility to do so should be blocked. But if there is perhaps there should be some kind of warning message before one is allowed to save a change like that - for example "Warning: are you sure you want to overrride Wikidata link ......". Jzlcdh (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata allows only 1-to-1 matches for interwiki links. Wikipedias have a non-zero number of articles where they want to keep the local links to deal with those situations. And local links overwriting links coming from Wikidata seems the only way to do this to me. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In the miniscule number of cases where one wanted an English article to be equivalent to two articles in, say, Turkish could not local links be in addition to Wikidata links rather than overwriting them? Alternatively could the interwiki links override the local links? After all in the vast majority of cases one English article is equivalent to one Turkish article not two or three. I think Wikipedia should be easy to use for 99.9% of cases and the 0.1% who want to do something very unusual should have to jump through the hoops not the other way around. Jzlcdh (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

This is usualy used for links with anchors to articles with multiple subjects, e. g. links of articles of Band members to an article of the band in another language. You can not link several times from members to the article because only one link for each language is allowed. On the other hand the band article can not link to several band members.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Draft for Wikidata support of Wikiquote

Hi all, I just set up (with user Nemo bis) a draft of proposal for the integration of Wikiquote in Wikidata. You can take a look at it here.

Just to be clear: this is not an attempt to change once again the developers' schedule, this is just a proposal to discuss now something that will happen in the future (hopefully, in the near future).

I acknowledge that lots of stuff are in study now, but still I think it's good to start talkings with the Wikiquote community about how to integrate one of our oldest sister projects - which is sufficiently easy to integrate for us and that will take enormous advantages from the integration with Wikidata.

Please, have your say. :) --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for writing this Sannita and Nemo. Will have a closer look as soon as I can. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny fuzzy item

The Smurfs (Q11221) corresponds to : a belgian comic book serial, a franchise, a set of characters, and maybe more depending on the description language. Any fuzzier item ? TomT0m (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Each one of those things you listed should have their own item.--Cattus (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
And usually these things are described in one article. Are you going to organize the process of division in every language edition? Infovarius (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Each one needs their own item and there should also be a general item. Most Wikipedias have separate articles for various parts of this but they often divide it up slightly differently. It is the job of wikidata to
1. reflect that division into articles so each article has a corresponding item and
2. have a wikidata item on each smurf and each smurf movie etc. so that infoboxes for each instance can be created from information on wikidata, even if it means a single wikipedia page has lots of infoboxes. Filceolaire (talk) 12:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
@Infovarius : not all of the items needs to have articles linked to them, but the other items will (might) have to exists to make precise claims in other contexts. Maybe we need to have a concept of fuzzy item linked to all the precised one. And that in some contexts it would be the preferred one to be the interwiki item. TomT0m (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Number properties

It's been very quiet 'bout the number properties for a long time. Is there a chance it will be this year?

Yes a first version without units should come with one of the next deployments. I'll let you know when I know more. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little puzzled—without units, what can we document with the type that isn't already covered by the string datatype?... The use case for unitless numbers would be nice. :) --Izno (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Number of inhabitants for example. You could of course do that with a string but it'd not be a good idea. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Number of inhabitants has the unit "persons". Unless the devs are only implementing recognized units of measure by the ISO? Or is there something more creative planned, such as asking the user to submit the type of measurement? --Izno (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending lists 40 properties with dimensionless number datatype and 53 properties with number+dimension datatype which have been approved and are waiting to be created. Filceolaire (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
"Number of inhabitants" looks dimensionless to me.
One advantage of the number datatype is that I think it will allow uncertainty, which string doesn't. Compare the time-datatype where you can add precision to decade or second or whatever. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Numbers also allow handling as mathematical values so you can divide number of population by surface of the item and get automated a number of population density. Or you can summarize the figures of several items. You can not divide strings. You also can convert miles in km, feet in meters and inches into centimeters, °F in °C automaticaly. String is a good choice for numbers you don´t need to use as mathematical values as an number of an entry in a database.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
"Number of inhabitants" is dimensionless in much the same sense as "length of road in kilometres" is dimensionless. Populations can be specified in other units, e.g. households or families. Our property "number of inhabitants" will simply have the dimension specified as part of the property's definition, not as part of the value. Which approach makes more sense depends on the context, e.g. whether we commonly need to convert between different units, or whether a single unifying property is easier to manage than several specialised ones, or if our software can only handle a restricted selection of units. --Avenue (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of dimensionless numbers, both integers and fractional. You are only able to apply the 'units' argument to events that have an associated noun, so "the number of times that Oliver ran away from the orphanage" is easily treated as an integer type (with an associated context, i.e as the answer to the question "how many times did Oliver run away?"). But trying to create a unit for that event is not only ridiculously cumbersome, but pointless. An example of a dimensionless fraction is "the ratio of ambient pressure at the surface to the ambient pressure at 20 metres" - as are all ratios. To be useful, it is logical to store data which may be manipulated or compared numerically as a number. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Small changes but many bytes

I have noticed that when I add a link from el.wikipedia, I see that this change increases the size of the item page many times for more than 1.000 bytes, which is more than 10 times than the normal. I have set as default language in wikidata greek. What causes it and is it a bug? --C messier (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Some metadata is saved together with the data itself. "sitelink=whatever", "project=somewiki" etc.... It's not a bug. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the number of bytes being shown in the history is actually the number of bytes in the underlying data structure for that item. The underlying data structure is getting more stuff added to it in preparation for some new feature (badges maybe? — e.g. featured/good article) that's going to be coming out sometime soon. The Anonymouse (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Correct :) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. --C messier (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Wrong namespace interwikis!

Hi, I got some queries according to en.wiki namespaces and it shows we have some items that they have wrong interwiki namespace conflict! please solve them in local wiki or wikidata.

The query:
SELECT /*SLOW OK */ page_title,page_namespace ,ll_title  FROM page  JOIN langlinks ON page_id = ll_from WHERE page_namespace = 0 AND page_is_redirect = 0 
and ll_lang='en' and ((ll_title LIKE "%Template:%") or (ll_title LIKE "%Category:%") or (ll_title LIKE "%Wikipedia:%") or (ll_title LIKE "%Portal:%") or (ll_title LIKE "%User:%")
or (ll_title LIKE "%talk:%") or (ll_title LIKE "%Talk:%")) GROUP BY page_id;

yours, Yamaha5 (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

P107 (P107):Q11651459 keeps being added back

On the Lipina (Q394083) page I deleted P107 (P107):Q11651459 but it kept coming back. Every time I reloaded the page it got added again. Can anyone else see this? Filceolaire (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on, but no problem for me removing it. --Izno (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. Must be me then. Filceolaire (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This is incidentally a problem of Magnus Manske's "Wikidata useful" javascript. I'm going to notice him this. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Language Links

When I try to add a language link to a page, the wiki system says that that language is already linked to the page. Unfortunately I cannot find that language link anywhere.

Although I can understand that certain pages already have, within them, specific language links, I deplore the fact that they don't automatically appear in the "Languages" section on the left hand side menu bar. And since they don't appear there, somebody should change the parameters of the languages section to allow us to add the different language links there (regardless if the page is already linked to it through the text/body of the page).

To help us help you (wikipedia), some things should be made easier. We're giving our free time to help and are faced with barriers without seemingly any possible solution (no offense here coz honestly, having to wait to get a reply is not what I'd called readily available help! If I have to wait hours/days/weeks for other users to answer a simple question, then there goes my free time and I get a nice "frustration" gift with it as a bonus for wanting to help!).

I enjoy helping, I just don't enjoy the fact that I'm subjected to ridiculous rules of "one link per language and you have to sort through over 500 links in order to see 'if' the language you're searching for is indeed linked to the page in question".

Make it easier for us to help YOU!

Every time I come to help, I'm faced with way too many constraints and end up discouraged by the lack of help and beforehand understanding from the people at wikipedia that set up the parameters of the different page's sections.

You ask for our money and our time to support and help you... and in return you give us, among other things, headaches! We're happy to help in whichever way we can, you just need to make it easier for the newbies to understand the processes without having to read pages and pages of info that at the end, needs an instruction book to understand them!

Too complicated! I just want to link the pages fast and easily without having to deal with the hassle! Make it EASY!!!

Totally discouraged!

I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. We're working hard on improving the software to make it more userfriendly and the community is also working on better documentation. Unfortunately this all is taking time. Help is welcome. I hope you'll have a better experience in the future. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Why does the interface check for duplicates anyway? That decision to have one-to-one relations implies that all Wikipedias must have exactly the same concept structure in order to link between them, which is terrible (and not how language links were used in the past, that usually were one-to-many). If a concept is split and described in two articles in the English Wikipedia, but both aspects of the topic are covered in one single article in the Spanish Wikipedia, only one English article can link to the Spanish version.
For example, I've tried to link Ersatz to the Spanish article Bien sustitutivo, but it warns me that this concept is already linked from Substitute good. I've had to create the link from "Ersatz" to "Bien sustitutivo" manually. It's possible to cheat the editor with redirects anyway, so checking for duplicates is hurting usability for no practical gain. Diego Moya (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Diocese and other ecclesiastical divisions

Right now we have diocese (P708) which is useful - that being a geographical subdivision within certain churches. One level up from a parish.

But, if we have diocese (P708) then it would stand to reason that we also need an ecclesiastical province property. However, that would contradict the present located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) catch-all system we are using.

So, should we have a single "is in" property for religious admin divisions? If so, is there a similar concept for other, non-Christian, religions? Danrok (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Is in religious unit...? Really, we should simply have a claim such as "location" (currently exists but more limited in scope) or "is in", because the claim "is in administrative unit" carries information with it that isn't necessary—that the unit it is in is an administrative area, which should be evidenced instead with the appropriate subclass of (P279) claim... --Izno (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
(Of course, people get really scared when the property could be used for anything. For no reason whatsoever, imo. :) --Izno (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we have to separate organisational "is in" and geographical "is in". Some of the municipalities in Sweden cannot have anything "geographicly located in" them, since they are not of geographic nature. Some of the parishes here are also non-geographic. If you belong to the Tukholman Suomalainen Seurakunta (Finnish parish in Stockholm), then you do that nomatter exactly where you live. That is also true for the parish of the royal family. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
diocese (P708) can be replaced by part of (P361). part of (P361) can also be used to link an instance of a 'diocese' to an instance of an 'ecclesiastical province'.
part of (P361) can be used for both organisational "is in" and geographical "is in", depending on whether the items it links to are organisations or places. (subclass of (P279) should not be used to link an instance to an instance - it is for linking a class to a class.) Why would we need another property when part of (P361) can do the job? Filceolaire (talk) 12:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
On a side note, not entirely true. Example (simply a convenient one): USS Baltimore (Q3424471) instance of (P31) Baltimore-class cruiser (Q805739) (which is a subclass), but Baltimore-class cruiser (Q805739) instance of (P31) ship class (Q559026). The same interaction occurs in taxonomy. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Not sure that part of (P361) can replace properties like diocese (P708) or Ecclesiastical province. Yes, you can say that Diocese of Norwich is part of (P361) the Province of Canterbury, but claiming that the Bishop of Lincoln is part of (P361) the Province of Canterbury doesn't work for me. That would be similar to claiming an American actor is part of the USA, instead of using country of citizenship (P27). That may be valid in some ways, but there are some differences in meaning. Danrok (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we show the property "office held by"?

How should incumbents of offices be listed (or previous office-holders, for that matter)? For example, currently President of the United States (Q11696) does not link to Barack Obama (Q76), which seems a bit odd. Similarly, United States of America (Q30) has this chain: property head of state (P35) -> value Barack Obama (Q76) -> qualifier position held (P39) -> value President of the United States (Q11696), but I think it would make more sense to go head of state -> name of the office -> office held by -> name of incumbent. I'm not sure how new properties are approved, but would it be reasonable to propose a new property "office held by" as an opposite of the property position held (P39)? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know how Phase 3 will look like before we do to much of this. Will it be possible to list all "current officeholders" i.e. officeholders without stopdate? -- Lavallen (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
As a general principal we should make sure the important info is in the property and the qualifiers only have additional supporting data. In this case I think Barack Obama (Q76) (the name of the head of state) is more important than President of the United States (Q11696) (the official title of the head of state) so that is why the property should be as it is. Filceolaire (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Changing the name of "List of" items

Each 'instance of', 'Occupation', 'Office held', 'type of administrative unit' property needs suitable items to link to. In many cases the only suitable items are lists.

When this happens I have started to rename those lists. For example 'List of Governors of New Mexico' is now 'Governor of New Mexico'. and can be used as the object for the 'office held' property. In each case I have taken the following measures:

I have done this rather than creating new items with no sitelinks because in most cases these lists include an introductory paragraph which describes the subject, exactly as I need to link to (any list that doesn't can be considered a work in progress). Each of these pages is a list therefore it is, almost by definition, a class - just what I want to link to.

A link to an item with sitelinks is always more useful than a link to an item without.

Thought I would mention it here. Filceolaire (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

This is similar to an issue I just had with monarchs. I created pages in the format "Monarch of X" for use in the "office held" property of kings and queens, but maybe I should have just renamed the existing "monarchy in X" pages to make them the title of the office. Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with this approach, as it certainly corrupts the data.
I would much rather see separate items properly listed as classes, with the lists left to themselves. That way is much cleaner...
Alternatively, I think we might possibly be self defeating if we do it either way. The problem is that we end up intersecting classes that it defeats part of the purpose of Wikidata (which is at some point in some distant future to be able to eliminate or at least deprecate active use of the category system). *muse* --Izno (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear how it corrupts the data. Can you clarify?
If a 'List of' page clearly describes a class then that description is useful information which we lose if we have a separate item (with no sitelinks) for that class.
On lots of these pages if you look at the wikipedia page names you will find half are called 'List of' and the other half aren't, though they have pretty much the same content. Calling the wikidata page 'List of' because that is the name of the enwp page is no more correct than leaving 'list of' off the label because that is what the frwp page does.
I agree that we need to avoid intersecting classes. I am not proposing all 'List of' pages are useful classes and I agree that the 'List of' pages that are intersecting classes should not be used for classifying wikidata items. Filceolaire (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability change for Commons

Since Commons is being launched tomorrow, we should probably add Commons to our notability criteria: i.e. "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, or Commons page." Are there any objections? --Rschen7754 23:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 Support Definitely. --DangSunM (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 Support Of course. It would kind of be pointless to launch Commons and not add it to the notability policy. TCN7JM 23:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 Conditional support I agree that the new criteria should include Commons, but it should have a more general wording so that we don't have to make votes like this everytime Wikidata is deployed in sister projects. Pikolas (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 Support with reservations, see below--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Exclusions

We should excluded categories in commons:Category:User_categories and commons:Category:User_categories_(flat_list) Because, these are user categories. So I propose exclude this.--DangSunM (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Reword

I suggest "It contains at least one valid sitelink to public-facing content on a supported wikimedia family." This handles both the exlusion issue above and the need to add every supported member of the family. 130.195.179.107 23:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I support this text to be added to Wikidata:Notability but I think we should still add DangSunM's language to Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria. Filceolaire (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I likewise support this wording, as well as adding DangSunM's exclusion examples, as well as explicitly excluding user category pages on other projects as well. It came up a while ago at RfD and I've been forgetting to propose it ever since. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Even if we do that, we should still re-evaluate this whenever a new project comes on board. --Rschen7754 00:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Please start a separate RFC for user categories. We shouldn't make a major change for what is otherwise a routine update.
The proposed change by the IP would also remove support for every other non-mainspace namespace, so I would certainly oppose it, as an aside. --Izno (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't even understand what it says. Before I read Izno's comment, I had no idea what "public-facing content" meant. And while I know what a "supported wikimedia family" is, someone else might wonder what this means - are all technically supported Wikimedia wikis "supported", or is only some subset of them called "supported" here? Why not just change to "It contains at least one valid sitelink to a Wikipedia or Wikivoyage page." to "It contains at least one valid sitelink." --YMS (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
What is "a Commons page"? If it is everything without a prefix, we are most likely fine. But we obviously do not want to include files as notable, and I think we do want to include categories. And what about the Commons: namespace?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have had coffee before writing this. "A Commons page" is everything hosted on Commons which does not fall under exclusion criteria. We still need to look carefully at the Commons: namespace, there are user galleries there and other stuff which we do not want to host. It might be a good idea to notify the Commons community, they know much better what they have.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, User-pages maybe in the future have to be included, since users are Authors of a lot of files there. What we "want to" host is maybe not what we should look for. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a complete overview what is currently in the Commons: namespace? I do not, despite being a pretty active Commons user.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it really a problem ? Technically I don't think so, a bot can easily add something like a meaningless class to those items to sort them, and we can make it easy to exclude them from a standard query with query engine results. I don't think it's a problem to have those items. TomT0m (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, after re-reading it I agree with above that the text suggested by the IP isn't sufficient. Perhaps it would be good to look at each project being added on a case-by-case basis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Succesion of administrative units

I was working with the history of Botkyrka Municipality (Q113718) here, when I now faced some trouble. It was founded 1971 when Botkyrka Rural Municipality (Q10433726) and Grödinge Rural Municipality (Q10509949) merged and formed a new entity. The pre- 1971 municipalities did not only had different names, they where of a different kind, following other laws than the new founded. The neighbour Salem Municipality (Q1255130) was founded in the same way at the same time. All of this is easy to describe with follows (P155)/followed by (P156).

Salem was split 1974 into two parts. 10,4 km2 (9,3 was land) and a population of 249 was transferred to Södertälje Municipality (Q516336). The rest was merged into Botkyrka.

Botkyrka was split 1983, and a municipality with the name Salem was again founded. This time, the parts transferred to Södertälje 1974, was kept by Södertälje, only the parts belonging to Botkyrka created the "new Salem".

Is it at all possible to describe this correctly on Wikidata? Transfer of small parts of land and population between administrative units happens all the time. Should I create separate items to describe "Salem 1971-73" from "Salem 1983-" to avoid two sets of inception (P571) in one item? -- Lavallen (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think significant event (P793) with the object <border change> (new item needed for this) will work. It's designed to track changes in an item over time. When we have a way to link to geographical objects for borders then these can be used with multiple values and date qualifiers showing each version of the unit. Filceolaire (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In this case, at least for Salem, is there two "founded date" and one "dissolved date". It opens to a lot of possible misunderstanding for robots and coding in WP et al. In juridical terms, Salem (1971-73) is most likly not the same "person" as Salem (1983-). They have the name, P132 (P132) and large parts of the geographical area in common, but they are not the same "person". If they would have had two different names, they should have separate artices on WP, just like the pre-1970-municipality has. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. The defining issue when deciding whether to we need one page or more is: Can we describe this on one page using wikidata properties? and Could we describe it using wikidata properties if we split it into multiple pages? Filceolaire (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Property needed for title specifier?

I'd like to get some thought on a qualifier idea. Basically I'm adding some details on Pope Francis (Q450675) and it turns out some titles/office held (namely titular bishop (Q948657), auxiliary bishop (Q75178)) are inappropriate to writing in full with the associated location, which is nonetheless very relevant. In theory diocese (P708) can be used, but I'm not entirely sure it is correct in this case, plus this solution leaves several other cases unsolved. Members of legislatures, deans/director of universities, leaders of other civil or religious organizations (such as congregations)... run into the same issue, you want to specify the riding/district, but there is no article for the title of United States representative (Q13218630) for the Tennessee's 7th congressional district (Q7699995), so you'd need a qualifier property. Pope Francis' titular church as a cardinal (San Roberto Bellarmino church (Q959683)) can similarly not be listed. Is a property ("associated organisation or area"?) that would encompass these situations appropriate? Circeus (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't we simply use of (P642) ? Simple and easy to retrieve in a variety of contexts --Zolo (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I was clueless to its existence because as far as I can tell it is not documented in any of the lists of properties! Circeus (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm pushing in my RfC on constraint to switch to a class based model for proposals on constraints. This would allow a class based documentation : the noble person class would be the place to see how to use properties on noble people items ... I think the endless list of properties approach is far from beiing good enough, and it will not scale : the more it will grow, the worst it will be. see Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Constraint_violation_technical_bases (it's on constraint, but it's the same problem for documentation, and clever use of constraint templates display could be the documentation by itself) TomT0m (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

entries

Hello. I would like to translate the word "entries" that appears in all wikidata pages with the greek word (for the greek version) but i can't find it anywhere in translatewiki.net. Xaris333 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's this one (change the code en). --Stryn (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thx! Xaris333 (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Adam and Eve German Wikipedia links

On the German Wikipedia, "Adam" redirects to "Adam und Eva". This is preventing other wikis that have separate "Adam" and "Adam and Eve" articles, such as English Wikipedia, from linking to them. This is the error message I got while trying to add a link for German on "Adam":

Site link Adam und Eva is already used by item Adam and Eve (Q58701). Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Feel free to ask at Project chat if you are unsure.

This suggestion seems kind of silly. English Wikipedia has chosen to split up the topics, while German Wikipedia has combined them. Why should both wikis have to have a one to one structure in order for the articles to have relevant inter-language links?

The bottom line is that if I'm on English Wikipedia's "Adam" or "Adam and Eve", and I want to read about Adam in German, "Adam und Eva" is where I want to go, so both English articles should have this link.

Attys (talk) 15:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, we got this question several times a week these days :) This is the Bonny and Clyde problem. In an ideal world I would just link to Wikidata:Help:Bonny and Clyde, but it's not done yet. So short answer : community has agreed to a solution to this problem : allow the link to redirection pages in interwiki links. It's not been done currently by the dev team for different reasons, but there is a workaround : replace the redirection by a non redirection articles for a few minutes, a soft redirect for example, set the interwiki, then restore the redirection. TomT0m (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a probem in the german wikipedia and not a problem of wikidata - there was a tendence in de.wikipedia to level down the amount of pages to one by stuffing everything in the article "Wikipedia" ;-) short: they broke it, they should fix it. --FischX (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Properties for family names and personal names

I just looked whether there are properties to tell us the personal names and the family names (and patronyms and middle names and whatever other naming systems there are) of persons. I did not find any and I also did not find any discussions at the property proposals. But I'm sure there were discussions about this at some time in the past. Could anybody point me to these discussions if there are any? Properties like these would for example be useful to automatically collect lists with the bearers of the name at the Wikipedia page about the name. --Slomox (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think family name (P734) and given name (P735) are what you are looking for. I'll just add some aliases to make them easier to find.
See Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#patronymic_.2F_Patronym_.2F_nom_.C3.A0_suffixe_patronymique for a proposal under consideration for a patronymic property - feel free to comment or vote. Filceolaire (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, thank you, these properties are what I was looking for. Almost no entries use the properties so far, but I hope that will change in the future. --Slomox (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Language link: Julio Alak

I tried to link Julio Alak to خوليو حلاق to no avail. It's the same guy, I swear! (check with google translate if you don't believe me :) ). I get this: An error occurred while trying to perform save and because of this, your changes could not be completed. Details: Site link خوليو حلاق is already used by item Q12210978. Perhaps the items should be merged and one of them deleted? Feel free to ask at Project chat if you are unsure. --FiliusRosadis TheRealOne (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

→ ← Merged. --Stryn (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
THX :) --FiliusRosadis TheRealOne (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From a community standpoint, today's Commons deployment was a tremendous failure

From a technical standpoint, this appears to be a successful deployment. Hats off to the developers for that.

From a community standpoint, however, today's deployment was a failure. We knew that this was coming for weeks and did not prepare for it. When Wikidata launches on new projects, there are several things that the Wikidata community needs to do before launch:

  • The Wikidata community, in consultation with the sister project(s) that Wikidata is being deployed to, needs to determine what data is coming over, how the data is going to be transferred, and when the transfers are going to happen.
  • The Wikidata community needs to set up a page explaining Wikidata going live on the sister project(s) means to those sister projects(s) — how will it effect those projects, where will they see changes, and how they can help. A list of people involved in both projects that are ready to field questions or offer assistance would also be helpful.
  • The Wikidata community should have infrastructure for the deployment ready to go before the deployment happens. This means both that the necessary policy changes need to be amended (after the necessary policies are decided on), and that things like interwiki link importing bots should be selected and largely ready to go ahead of time.

Instead, what we have is:

  • Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons, a proposal page that pretty much only indicates that no decisions have been made and everything is on hold
  • A thread on the Commons village pump that went stale a week ago as the primary means of communication between the two projects
  • BotMultichill (talkcontribslogs) doing interwiki imports, with only the tacit approval of the people that were in the #wikimedia-wikidata IRC channel to go on, and no established set of policies to govern what interwiki links he should and should not be importing
  • A majority of Commons users are oblivious that this is happening, and because they have not been brought into the loop, are not monitoring the effort

In many ways Commons is the closest project to Wikidata among all the WMF projects, and potentially has the most to benefit from a close working relationship with Wikidata. If Wikidata is to be successful we need to do better at creating a bridge to the projects we're deployed to, and we need to improve our preparation skills. If we don't, Wikidata will become a walled garden, and that's something I don't think anyone wants.

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As the user who started the actual version of Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons, I totally quote Sven: this is the first time, out of three, that we just don't know what to do. And this is absolutely awful. I also thought that links such as Wikipedia page = Commons gallery and Wikipedia category = Commons category would have been non-controversial points in this operation, but it turned out I was wrong... --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 23:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
+1. For a site that is in development like this one, we all need to take efforts to stay on top of current developments, and figure out how they will affect us. --Rschen7754 23:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
A new thread on Commons: commons:Commons:Village pump#Wikidata is here!--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I have pointed out an example in that thread (the Albert Einstein pages) of the sorts of problems being caused already. Personally I don't think all the blame belongs with the Wikidata community; unlike Sven, I think the developers also deserve a big share. Their tendency to deploy (mis)features before the relevant communities have confirmed they want them and can handle them is IMO the root cause of the immediate problem here. --Avenue (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

So, how do we fix this?

See header. --Rschen7754 03:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The project as a whole suffers from a critical lack of willingness to discuss things. Participation rates at most Requests for Commons are bad. Participation rates at Properties for deletion discussions are outright abysmal. Major decisions, from how new datatypes are implemented to bot approvals, are conducted in IRC channels, far too often including the admin-only channel, because many of the most active users (myself included) have come to the unpleasant realization that IRC is the only place where you can get a half dozen people to discuss an issue within a reasonable amount of time. We have project critical RfCs that have been open for several months, and in the absence of a community consensus on those issues, people are just doing what they think makes sense, even if they wind up contradicting each other. The failure of Wikidata to prepare for the rollout of Commons is a symptom of a greater problem — the project's inability to make decisions. How then do we fix this immediate issue then? We could start an RfC, but would people participate? I don't think that they will, but right now it's the only real solution we have. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It's hardly surprising that this happens though. There are tens of RfCs open at any given time, half of which are on something that I don't understand, and neither does anyone other than a select few other people. I get the feeling that if Wikidata was somehow more easy to understand, then more people would be involved - but a major obstacle to that is a lot of stuff on Wikidata isn't even defined. That's what all the RfCs are about. Combine that with the fact that discussion happens on any one of the 52 project chats and the RfC pages, and nobody knows what discussions are even going on. Then there are noticeboards on top of that too! My personal preferences on a solution then look more at what I see as the root of the problem:
  • Consolidate policy-making discussion onto one page, project discussion (help, how do I do this, can someone fix this vhow andalism, etc.) onto another.
  • Make the policy-making discussions somewhat followable. Translation isn't a big deal, but scope is. I have almost no idea what is going on here, as an example. These massive sweeping RfCs obviously aren't working, so trying to make RfCs that address a specific question would be very, very beneficial for dumb people like me anyway. An RfC could follow the principles of a good essay or paper: present the topic, present your thesis, discuss from there. Example: The topic is instance of (P31). The thesis is that Q5 be used for any human people with P31. Support or oppose.
  • Unfortunately, the above isn't possible because of the insane system of determining which properties exist and which don't. Sven accurately summed up the two schools of thought on lots of properties vs. few properties, but all but maybe five users here have no clue what that means - either the definition or the implication.
  • Which leads to my next point, all properties should have very clear guidelines on their use prior to being created or used. Then a discussion over what qualifier to use for humans with regards to P31 would be easy, because it would be clarifying a specific area, whereas right now we need to clarify the entire property and properties as a whole. Am I even using the word qualifier correctly? Because it isn't documented well anywhere. I'll call it the "thing in the property" since that better describes it.
Honestly, I'm not sure if any of those ideas were solutions. More just what I see as parts of the massive problem. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What I think and try to push by RfCs : we should stop focusing and properties and start focusing on classes. Every items might have 10th of claims, each of them with several qualifiers : we should start to model things at the infobox level in you don't like the term class or type. It's a paradigm shift which will allow to think of a lot of usecases at the sametime : how do we model a city ? how do we model a computer scientist ? how do we model a math theorem ? Versus how do we use the <serie> property. Things are slow and confusing and ill documented on WIkidata, we need this paradigm shift to scale : it's a lot faster to decide for several property and a lot of items in one discussion than property and claims separately ... TomT0m (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
One more thing : discussing property by property community wide is exactly as discussing infobox field by infobox field community wide. From what i've seen, on WIkipedia, if someone wants to create an infobox, he creates an infobox. This is a major difference that explains a lot, in my opinion. TomT0m (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with all of you. Why not give this RfC regarding RfCs a try? And whenever we propose properties here or whole data models there we could use http://test.wikidata.org to create working examples. Both, simple as well as complex examples could be created as reference and as a basis for the descision. Perhaps this would help in getting a feeling of the look and feel of the proposal instead of abstract prose descriptions which are hard to follow in many cases.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems overkill to launch a RfC each time we want to model a class, it would lead to tenth (and more) or RfCs. We need a model/class proposal/amendment' page, or something weaker. This would imply the creation of the needed properties all a once, maybe bypassing the property proposal page. TomT0m (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
One word about policy decisions : I don't think we need a better RfC process, we need a community agreement so that the RfCs go fast, and discussions so that the notions are clear enough (with a RfC rereading process prior to their launch ? I'm not really a good teacher so if someone could reread them and make them understandable prior to their launch it would be a good thing). TomT0m (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as project launches, I've started a checklist at Wikidata:Sister projects. Feel free to add more questions that we should ask ourselves whenever we add more projects. --Rschen7754 01:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


Well, so what I meant is how to fix up our integration with Commons, and fast :P Though the big picture issue is worth discussing, right now we've got a lot of confusion, and meanwhile people are adding stuff without any guidance. --Rschen7754 05:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we should (1) stop import immediately; (2) open an RfC on Commons (the main issue apparently being links of commons categories to Wikipedia pages); (3) in the meanwhile, discuss other issues outlined by Sven. I definitely like Multichill's proposal, but I do not think we should go forward at least before it has been accepted on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not totally in favour of stopping import. I think we can go on with the two non-controversial points I set up in the draft: items for WP/Wvoy articles should link to Commons galleries and items for WP/Wvoy categories should link to Commons categories. About the discussion with Commoners about "cross-links" (i.e. WP article -> Commons category), definitely +1: we need to talk with them about it.
Meanwhile, I made a "bold" decision and modified WD:N according to the fact that now Commons is supported - even if we still don't know how to deal with "cross-links". @Ymblanter:, can you please link the Multichill's proposal about that? Thanks. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I disagree that we should just charge ahead willnilly with making same-namespace interwiki links. Doing so can cause big problems, as I've explained in the Commons Village Pump thread linked above. Please wait for a consensus both here and on Commons before causing more damage. --Avenue (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I probably can link the Multichill's proposal, but I do not quite see where to link it from.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
One suggestion - the front page Wikidata:Main_Page could be improved. As it is, much of it is just static information/links. It needs to be more informative about what is going on today, where help is needed, where important discussion is needed, etc. Something like a to-do list for the community. Alternatively Wikidata:Community_portal could be used for this. And, presently the same problem exists there, it's just some static links. We need the links, but we also need something that is a bit more lively looking. So you can see at a glance what people are chatting about, etc. Danrok (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

just a suggestion, when after all waiting, there is zero participation on a given question, and thus forcing irc discussion, i suggest that afterwards some informal copy of it's log to be pasted into the relevant quasi-empty page here, just to keep some historical record. i think it'd be informative for the future. --Aaa3-other (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Import Interwiki doesn't work for Commons

E.g. try doing it for Q4654740: it says "unknown language". It Is Me Here t / c 13:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been solved if I look at the right place. Earlier today, I typed "English" in the corresponding window, and it worked (for a different item).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think It Is Me Here means slurpInterwiki gadget. And why it doesn't work is propably because it does not yet support Commons. Someone should notice Tpt about that. --Stryn (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
This is what I meant, yes. It Is Me Here t / c 10:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Focus on classes.

It's kind of hard to know what Wikidatians thinks, so i'll ask a simple questions : is there a broad concensus about the idea we have

  • to switch from a property based reasoning and voting to a class based discussions, which includes : which property use with the concerned classes, how to qualify them?
  • We also switch documentation to document classes instead of properties

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomT0m (talk • contribs).

  • I have no idea what this means. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    Ok, great, something to start with :). I'll take an analogy : the infoboxes. Roughly, an infobox template like infobox scientist is the equivalent of a class on Wikidata (see Help:Basic membership properties. Any item which is is linked to a scientist, like Albert Einstein (Q937) is in the human class (and in the scientist class if that exists), for example, and the article linked to it can have the infobox scientist template in their sourcecode. What comes with the infobox template is a way to display some informations about Einstein and persons in general. Which we do not have really right now for classes ... We reason on property proposal, not in term of which properties and qualifier should I use for a scientist ? I think the latter option is really something we need, and that we should start focusing on that. That that is usually called a model for the items on that classes. Constraints can be defined such that a bot can check if any scientist fit in this model, and reports statements and items that do not fits. Questions ? /o\ TomT0m (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    I think we should focus on associating a model to classes, understand how to express this model, how this model can help user when they edit thingd (think of a gadget that understands that model and says to you you should use the scientific domain property with one of those value for example ...
I didn't understand a lot of what you said there Tom but the bit I did understand I disagree with. For me an infobox template is not the equivalent of a class. I think you need to rewrite the above with more examples of how this might work in practice. Remember that if it is all about constraints then most people don't need to worry about it as they don't operate bots which check constraints. Filceolaire (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
@TomT0m There are too many RfCs open on subjects closely linked so it's difficult to keep an overall view of what is wikidata structure and what is the most important ~element to decide first. The main problem is we aggregated data and data structures from different WPs without any clear idea of how we will structure this data. Right now everybody is working alone in his side without thinking global and application in wikipedia.
If we can find a solution to the GND migration (which were the first seven classes) and if we can get a list of classes and subclasses, then we will be able to go further with properties definition for each class and documentation. or the best way is to create an infobox and each class and specific properties can be tested directly in wikipedia. That's the only way to create a move because right now what we are doing as just cloud sculpting. Snipre (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Filceolaire : of course they are not totally equivalent, but what I could say is that discussing things property by property, like we do in property creation, is roughly the same as discussing community wide every field of every infobox. And having a RfC for a class (or a couple) is exactly at the same level of having a RfC on wikipedia for every infobox. TomT0m (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think we do not need to have a clean class hierarchy before we create classes. Having a process and tools for that will realease the lock of the need to make a big decision any time we want to do this. But first community needs to understand what a class is. TomT0m (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Translation of wiki items

Hi everybody,

I'd like to know, if and where I can download a database with the translations of an item.

For example: Republic of Kosovo. With the help of the gadget "Labels list" I can easily see the translations of Republic of Kosovo with lang_iso code and translation.

Is it possible to get these information in a database. Because my workflow is to get translations for all european countries for example.


Any help welcome. Thank you very much. -- ch

If you want to get the list of all label list for each european language. then maybe you should try to learn the wikidata api. You can call the api using a normal web browser. then choose a format to get the data. for example in xml format. If you know a little bit about programming you can parse those XML to get the translation for all language.

--Napoleon.tan (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Help

I can not link the greek (el) wikipedia category [[Κατηγορία:Ιστότοποι της Ελλάδας]] with the item Q8500430 as I can not see the "edit" in ``Wikipedia pages linked to this item``. I have been blocked? --Vagrand (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem to add the main article ``National Archaeological Museum, Athens`` in item Q6483858.--Vagrand (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I was able to add the link for the first item. I'm not sure why the edit link is not working for you, although I think this issue has happened before. The Anonymouse (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It has. Javascript occasionally just fails to load for some people, or worse, loads improperly and your edits wind up showing as your IP and not your account. The WMDE/Wikidata staff are aware of the issue, I think. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Article specific QR codes


135px wide Wikipedia logo with 135px wide QR code linking to the Main Page.


135px wide Wikidata logo with 110px wide QR code linking to the Main Page.



Sample version 1, 2, 3 QR codes to demonstrate complexity.

My idea has several parts.

I think it would be neat if we had a built in QR code system that works similar to qrpedia.org. Perhaps even integrating it.

One problem with QR codes is as the url becomes more complicated so does the qr code itself making the qr code harder to be read. Given how some article titles are light-years long, one solution to this would be a system which redirects based on page IDs. Say something like enwp.org/1234567890 would redirect to the relevant article.

This ID number could be converted to a hexadecimal value too (since QR code will have to be alphanumeric anyways) to shorten/compress it which the redirecting service would know how to translate. QR code version 1 (with low error correction) supports 25 characters and just with 11 hexadecimal digits 17,592,186,044,415 decimal IDs can be represented which should be more than sufficient leaving 14 characters to construct the rest of the url. QR version 2 with high error recovery permits 20 chars. See https://developers.google.com/chart/infographics/docs/qr_codes for a complete list.

Such a service can be integrated particularly to article printouts for example allowing printouts to link back to the article.

I also have a wild idea of such a qr code displaying just under the wikidata logo (and perhaps same thing can be applied to other projects too) but I realize not everyone may be as interested as I am in making the wikidata logo machine readable. Of course this QR code would be with WMF colors :P.

So what are the thoughts on the idea?

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 16:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

QRpedia ownership is being transferred to Wikimedia UK the United Kingdom country branch. See uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler#QRpedia_update. As I understand it QRPedia works (at the moment) by detecting your language settings and then checking enwp to find a link to an article in that language. Upgrading this to use wikidata items instead seems like a good idea and I hope WMUK have it in their plans for QRpedia. Filceolaire (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Mind that currently QRPedia generates QRCodes for the actual wikipedia URL which can be a problem. Simpler QR codes are easier for machines to read. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Also we can go beyond the base 16 hexadecimal system to a base 36 (0-9+A-Z) system. Above 11 hexadecimal representation can be expressed with 9 base 36 digits: 68HQLCQV3. And 9 base 36 digits can represent a maximum decimal value of 2,176,782,335 which should be more than sufficient for any wiki. Mind that current highest page ID for en.wikipedia is mere 40,592,460 or O61CC in base 36 so a mere 6 characters can even be sufficient depending on the implementation. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 11:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Proposed the redirection component at Bugzilla:54459. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 02:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Mediawikiwiki:Requests for comment/URL shortener service for Wikimedia filed for technical input. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Understanding Wikidata - your comments on Meta for a grant proposal

Dear colleagues from Wikidata, now I have been bold and drafted a proposal for an Individual Engagement Grant: Understanding Wikidata. It is an initiative to provide material making it easier to contribute to Wikidata. I would like to ask a favor from you: could you have a look, comment, give me tips to improve it? m:Grants:IEG/Understanding Wikidata Kind regards Ziko (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Commons is here!

Heya folks :)

It's done! We've just enabled interwiki links for Commons. \m/ Please let me know if you have questions or spot any issues. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Great! IMO should be better if we would not need to choose the language, because it's always English. --Stryn (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Äh... I just looked at the IRC, and you're working on it. --Stryn (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic: I think that page should be changed to link. (I wrote at translatewiki.net, but didn't get any answers). --Stryn (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well done to the development team! :) Three down, seven or so to go? Delsion23 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I added an interlink here BBC (Q9531), but it doesn't let me add more than one. The "add" button is grey now. Danrok (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This new link on BBC (Q9531) is linking Wikipedia articles to a Commons category : precisely the type of link that was non-controversially listed as On hold in Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons. What's up exactly? - LaddΩ chat ;) 01:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I was expecting to be able to add one item per language to the list. See Category:Albert Einstein, on that page there is an English commonswiki link there, but no way to add all the category pages for other languages. The add button is grey, along with a message saying "List of values is complete.". Danrok (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You can only add one link to Commons because the project is multilingual and only has one page for all languages. The "English" label is misleading and is supposed to be removed (bugzilla:54492). The Anonymouse (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I see now! I think my confusion was down to looking at the Wikipedia interlinks on the Commons category page (the links to the related Wikipedia articles). I was thinking that this was a replacement for that. Danrok (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Just like for Wikipedia and Wikivoyage you can only link to one Commons page in an item. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 05:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
What happens if you need to link to both a commons gallery and a commonscat? --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 11:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata can't handle that. The best option I can see is to pick the one with most viewers, so as to inconvenience the fewest people when interwiki links on the page you don't pick fall out of date. Maybe bots will pick up the slack. (Ah, interwiki bots, deja vu!) --Avenue (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw the Commons interlink is listed in q937, as English language. As the Commons is multilingual project, language should be displayed as "Multilingual", not English. Kwj2772 (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

See above. We are working on that. The bug for it is bugzilla:54492. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the different from "Commons category" [32]; Xaris333 (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It can store the same data, but with a different function. See commons:Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata_is_here.21 for more details. --Avenue (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Members of Parliament & Congresspersons

What is the standard way of describing the position of a member of a legislative house (MPs, MLAs, Congresspersons, Senators)? I've seen it done a couple different ways. The property member of (P463) doesn't seem right because the description says it's for membership of an organization or club. The property position held (P39) seems like it should be for a specific office, like president or party whip, although it might be okay if it's qualified as "office held -> member of house of commons -> electoral district -> Anytown". However, that solution wouldn't work for legislatures with at-large members. I'm wondering if it would be better to have a parameter specifically for membership in a decision-making body (this might also include membership of councils or boards). Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

"However, that solution wouldn't work for legislatures with at-large members." Why not? -- Lavallen (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It wouldn't work if the property "office held" was supposed to refer to a specific office because there could be a hundred people with the office "at-large MP of Anystate" at a given time. If the "office held" property can be used like that, then I'll start adding it to the pages of MPs and congresspersons. I just figured that I should first ask if a dedicated property for members of legislatures would be better. Arctic.gnome (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I made some tests in Q518776 some time ago. To me, it looks like P463 does not fit, I would move it to P39 instead. A "property for members of legislatures" will always come to a point when I will not know if it fits or not. I think P39 will do the job for us. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll use P39. Follow up question: there do not appear to be many pages for the office of member of a legislature. On en.wp, titles like "Member of Parliament of X" or "Member of Parliament (X)" redirect to either "Parliament of X" or "Member of Parliament". Should I create a bunch of Wikidata pages without associated Wikipedia articles for the titles of "Member of Parliament of X"? Arctic.gnome (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
It was pointed out to me that adding of (P642) to position held (P39) will usually work for most elected officials that represent constituencies. Circeus (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
For the ones that represent a constituency, if "office held" is good enough, I was planning to use electoral district (P768) as the qualifier. Arctic.gnome (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
NOO ! Use of (P642) because it is a general property which can be used for executive and legislative bodies. Do you think how you will extract data in wikipedia if for some political positions you have to look for qualifier of (P642) and for others electoral district (P768) ? Snipre (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If we use "of" as the qualifier of "office held -> Member of Parliament", should we include "electoral district" on MPs' pages as a seperate parameter from "office held", or should it be avoided alltogether? Arctic.gnome (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I have no solution right now: we need to discuss that in details but each time you propose a specific way to classify data you have to think how difficult it would be to extract that information later because the best classification system is useless if you can't use it later. We need a RfC, a new one, to fix that because right now people are doing what they want without any thought about the extraction feasability of their contributions.
Just an attempt to answer your question: why do we need "electoral district" property ? I understand now your question
  • X
office held property -> Member of Parliament property value
of qualifier -> France qualifier value
start date qualifier -> xx.xx.xx qualifier value
  • Y
office held property -> President property value
of qualifier -> USA qualifier value
start date qualifier -> xx.xx.xx qualifier value
  • Z
office held property -> Governor property value
of qualifier -> Texas qualifier value
start date qualifier -> xx.xx.xx qualifier value
  • A
office held property -> Prime minister property value
of qualifier -> Australia qualifier value
start date qualifier -> xx.xx.xx qualifier value
  • b
office held property -> Senator property value
of qualifier -> USA qualifier value
electoral district qualifier -> NewYork qualifier value
start date qualifier -> xx.xx.xx qualifier value... Snipre (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
In example Y, would the page "Barack Obama" have no direct link to the page "President of the United States"? Arctic.gnome (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
"President of the United States" is typically the worse thing to use because you have two informations in the same value: president and United States. How can a machine or a query read this kind of information ? And then if for mayor you apply a different structure where the position and location are stored differenttly this would be a mess.
In programming language there is a key rule: unique format. So either we use "position+location" in an unique property value for all political position (and we create for each mayor a specific item) or we separate position from location for all politicians (president and mayor). If you want to understand the problem just try to think how you will extract the information for a president which was once mayor. And then if you ad that this person was an senator and you add a new qualifier electoral district, then in the same code you have to figure 3 different cases, this is a mess. You need an unique structure able to be read by an unique code for each "office hold" and able to build the correct infobox line with the same elements. Without that you will need to test every possible structure for each "office hold" and this will consume an important part of server capacity. Snipre (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I think in that case 'office held' could link to 'President of the United States' but for other less prestigious offices you could have:
  • c
Some Guy item
office held property -> President property value
of qualifier -> Bally-go-backwards municipality qualifier value
start date qualifier -> xx.xx.xx qualifier value Filceolaire (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So, having titles like "president" and "mayor" are useful on pages, but it would also be useful to have links to notable offices, like "president of the united states". Should we just include both? Barack Obama would look like this:

office held
president
of -> United States
start date -> 2008
President of the United States
start date -> 2008
Senator
of -> United States Senate
electoral district -> Illinois
start date -> 2005
end date -> 2008
Senator
of -> Illinois Senate
electoral district -> Illinois 13th District
start date -> 1997
end date -> 2004

Does this meet everyone's needs? The one problem I foresee is how to avoid the title "President of the United States" showing up twice on an infobox". Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've amended this (additions in bold) so we know if he was in the senate or the house. For most administrative units, which only have one council, we can link to the item for the admin unit. Filceolaire (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Branch discusion

We need a general decision about politician (and perhaps for other positions). There are 2 possibilities for the property position held (P39):

  1. Use the assembly item
    Advantage: all assemblies have an item position held (P39):Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Q844944)
    Disadvantage: the grammatical relation is not correct (in English and in French at least)
  2. Use/create an item for each assembly which correspond to the person. United States Senate (Q66096) -> United States senator (Q13217683). But in that case we double the number of items associated with assembly and we will create quite a lot of empty items like this one Member of the Swiss Federal Council (Q11811941)

If this is quite easy for national assemblies we have a problem when going to low levels in the political systems like mayor: we can't create an item for each position and here the unique solution is position held (P39):mayor (Q30185) with qualifier of (P642). As this solution is already applied then we should create a reduced list of item representing the different labels for political positions like Q3510907, deputy (Q1055894),... and use each time qualifier of (P642) with countries as value. But we need a solution if we want to be able to create an extraction code as simple as possible and especially if we want to avoid to keep dozens of infoboxes only to describe political positions which are a mess for persons with several activities. Arnold Schwarzenegger (Q2685) is a politician, an actor or a sportmen ? Can it be possible to create only one infobox for all persons ? Snipre (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As the item is 'senate of the USA' rather than 'Senator of the USA' does that mean that the property should be named elected to instead of office held? Filceolaire (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Not all public officials are elected, so that wouldn't work. For example, in Canada, senators are not elected. I think that 'office held' should still work for that, even if it doesn't sound grammatically correct... though surely there is some other solution that I can't think of :/ Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Though, two properties would work. 'elected to' for elected officials and 'appointed to' for the rest. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
And how do you want to extract that information in wikipedia article or infobox ? Each time you create different possibilities this means additional code lines with if loops in order to extract the information. Or you assume we will have two infoboxes for politicians: one for elected politicians and another one for appointed politicians. Snipre (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You would also need "inherited" for people who automatically assumed office upon the death of the previous holder. I think the best solution would be to keep using "office held" and create pages for "Member of Parliament of X" and "Congressperson of X". Those are notable offices, and there certainy could be standalone Wikipedia articles about them if anyone cared to write them. Arctic.gnome (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
but what about all the other less notable offices - state house and state senators for states in the USA and every other federal countryin the world - must be a thousand there. We also seem to be committed to listing the mayors of every one of the administrative divisions below that - counties and municipalities and boroughs. All these administrative divisions have items but their council/congress/senate usually/often don't. Where the council does have a separate item this is usually linked to articles filled with election results. In practice though, I guess 'of (P642)' can link to the item for the council where this exists and to the item for the administrative division where there isn't a separate item for the council. In the few cases where an administrative division has two levels of elected chamber (like the 'House' and 'Senate' most US states have) will need items for each of these. Filceolaire (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@Filceolaire Did you already try to extract data with lua code ? Because each time you create a different way to store data you need a different code to extract them: so for president of US you have a specific code, for mayor another one. I know I am annoying but I think you have no idea about what are the consequences of your choices. But even if two formats are not a big deal when you do that for professor, sportman, actor, author,... This will be impossible to handle in wikipedia. We need an unique way to store data about politician because if you take all possible cases which can be describe by "office hold" you will see the difficulty to manage this property in an infobox. Snipre (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Learning how to use Lua is on my todo list but for now I depend on others, like yourself, to advise me on what can be done and how to arrange things to make it straightforward to do things. I did try asking for advice on Wikidata:Contact the development team but never got much in the way of useful info there :( What is the best place to start learning about Lua?
Could you have a look at Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#station_code? There is an issue there about how data is extracted for use in an infobox and I think your opinion on it could be useful. Filceolaire (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not really related to Lua in itself, the same probem would arise in templates language. There is several possibility : If we want a generic infobox, for example, for every elected people in the world, it's better to have a unique format. That said maybe a french mayor and united states president deserves a different infobox as the elections are not the same, the office held is not at all the same ... This is a choice : a generic infobox, that can handle generic information, several infoboxes specialized to a subject. This is also a shoehorn problem : trying to be to much generic could lead to overly complex infoboxes, it should be an indication that we should split the infobox. On the over hand, we should try to keep the structure as clean as possible and not make special case in the same information can be handled in the generic model. TomT0m (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikibase dates in Lua

Do we have any built-in function or something to make it easier to convert Wikbase dates like +00000001809-02-12T00:00:00Z to something loo~king more natural. It seems that the #time parser is confused by the leading 0s. --Zolo (talk) 11:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess you already have seen the solution in eu:Module:Wikidata? It does not solve all cases, but it's a start. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I had not thought of looking into the Basque module ! Now at least I see the logic (apparently, we need to write the code to parse the date). Once it is parsed we can actually send it to another module like fr:Module:Date. --Zolo (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Beware that you have to be careful with years before 0. Year 0 does not exist, but it does in the time datatype. -00000001809-02-12T00:00:00Z, therefor have to be interpreted as year 1810 BCE. -- Lavallen (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the hint. I have made a new version in fr:Module:Wikidata/Test. For now, it only works when precision is no greater than a day and no smaller than a year, but at least it seems to work, see fr:WP:Wikidata/Bac à sable. --Zolo (talk) 14:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
or string.sub(d, 9, 9) == '0' then will be true for all years before 1000. or string.sub(d, 9, 12) == '0000' then will identify year 0 but not year 537, I think. But also that will be positive for year '10000'. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops, fixed thanks. --Zolo (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to import modules from other sites? For example, if on en-wikipedia, is it possible to import a Wikidata module like
local WBHack = require( 'd:Module:WBHacks' )
If yes, we should perhaps provide modules for common tasks, in this case: Module:Time to format Wikibase dates considering precision, before, after, remove leading 0s and so on. A Wikipedia chapter then only needs to define for example the default format like "June, 12 2013" vs "12. June 2013" and use the rest of the logic from the centrally developed Wikidata module.  — Felix Reimann (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've begun some month ago a module Time that is done to provide a nice interface to manipulate date and time in lua modules. It supports the Wikidata time format. If someone want to improve it (the user friendly output haven't been written yet) he's welcome. Tpt (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Qualifier for astronaut mission

Do we have generic qualifier which could be used for astronaut mission to indicate mission as launch or return? Example: w:ru:Быковский, Валерий Фёдорович. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What about UTC date of spacecraft launch (P619) and UTC date of spacecraft landing (P620) ? See their talk pages too. - LaddΩ chat ;) 22:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
These properties for mission items :-) I think something like generic type qualifier could be shared for similar purposes. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
instance of (P31) is the qualifier you are looking for. Filceolaire (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Phase 2 in Vietnamese Wikipedia

I just notices here: vi:Hạt_nhân_Linux that at least the version is automatically filled with data from wikidata. Sadly, I speak no Vietnamese.

  1. What needs to be done, to get this automatism in other languages as well?
  2. Several articles in the English Wikipedia have extra Templates for the current stable version, e.g. en:Template:Latest stable software release/Linux and also for the latest preview, e.g. en:Template:Latest preview software release/Linux. Are there Bots in place, to copy at least this data+reference into wikidata? Maybe deleting the pages at the same time, they are not needed any longer?
  3. For the software licenses, how about using en:Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX), at least on wikidata?
  4. How important are the en:Template:Infobox software boxes? I could imagine, Infoboxes for cities and states have higher priority. ScotXW (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Neither do I speek Vietnamese
1. The vi:Template:Thông tin phần mềm contains {{#property:P348}}, that makes the magic of automatic updates from Wikidata. I am not recomending that, I would instead propose you to develop a Module to call for the content in the Wikidata-items instead. It allows you today to be more flexible in what information is distributed to Wikipedia.
2. We have a lot of bots importing information from Wikipedia. Exactly which bot importing what am I not aware of.
4. Creating templates for Wikipedia and filling the items here with content is done by the active users and their bots, so the priority depends on their interest! Join us, and you will influence that priority!
-- Lavallen (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

patroller

we need urgently patroller, yesterday and today I checked several ip contributions and about 50% are wrong or vandalism --Rippitippi (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think we urgently need better abusefilter. I have just reverted some unconstructive edits. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Abusefilter don't block this for example [33] --Rippitippi (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Abusefilter cannot block everything but I can see that many edits would normally be blocked by a filter but they are not [34] [35] [36] [37] Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
[Off topic] why are those (etichetta, descrizione proprietà) in Italian language in Rippitippi's diff? --Stryn (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Same here. Maybe because Rippitippi's language setting is set to Italian (although I don't know why that is affecting how it appears to other users). Regardless of why, it's definitely a bug. The Anonymouse (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
By far the most edits by non-autopatrollers are simply adding sitelinks. Other than removing sitelinks, changing labels/descriptions or doing stuff with statements, this is a very low-risk kind of edit. Of course it will happen that someone links an article to a meta-page (help page) item, or a biography to a disambiguation page item, but this does not have any tragic effect (other than e.g. removing a sitelink, where the connection might get totally lost if this edit isn't patrolled in time) and it can be detected easily later on, by Wikidatans, by a normal Wikipedia user, or by some script, bot or database report that detects conflicting statements or something the like. So what about automatically patrolling this kind of edits? Then the ones that really need patrolling would be much more obvious, and it would be a much more doable task to patrol all of them. (I don't know how this could be done technically. A bot would be a possibility for sure, but maybe there could even be a configuration that those edits don't need to be patrolled in the beginning). --YMS (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion of articles merge

I don't know if this has already been suggested and is in progress. Since I do not know how to check this, I am suggesting to merge two articles: "Folk medicine" and "Traditional medicine". I believe they are about the same thing. Sincerely, Tatiana Grehan

Following the 'Data item' link of enwp for these 2 pages (after the search engine here could only find one of these) I found 'traditional medicine (Q771035)' and 'traditional medicine (Q3495328)'. The first has sitelinks to articles in 22 languages; the second has sitelinks to articles in 5 languages but 2 of these (english and portugese) also have articles linked to 'Traditional medecine'.
If the English and Portugese wikipedias decide to merge the separate articles they have for these concepts then we can follow suit of Wikidata but until then we have to have 2 wikidata items, reflecting what is on those wikipedias. Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to propose these articles be merged then this has to be done separately on each wikipedia as each is a separate project with it's own policies. If you want to have a go then en:Wikipedia:Merge and pt:Wikipédia:Fusão have the info on how to do this. Contact me on my talk page if you need help - just click on the 'add topic' tab at the top of the page to leave a message. Filceolaire (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
As you are stating that one topic is divided into 2 items, it is an interwiki conflict. You can use page Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts for discussion. --Infovarius (talk) 12:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category interwikis. "Person from" vs "Person born in"

I doubt there's much that Wikidata can do about this, but an example of my problem here is that the French Wikipedia's "Catégorie:Naissance à Aix-la-Chapelle" had an interwiki link to Category:People from Aachen (Q8044420), so I moved it to Category:Births in Aachen (Q7906198) along with the Russian "Категория:Родившиеся в Ахене". The Belarusian and Turkish links also had to be swapped. I quite like being able to help out when I find two items which need to be merged, but it seems that the majority of French and Russian interwiki links are pointing at the wrong English categories. That isn't Wikidata's problem per se, only we are here to sort the problem out. The French Wikipedia doesn't appear to have categories for "people from X", only "people born in X", the English Wikipedia is the exact opposite, the Russian has both.

Then I found out that both the French, Italians and Russians have categories for people who have died in Y; for example Category:Deaths in Aachen (Q9220591). Basically, looking at the categories on all local Wikipedias, this is a real headache. Does anyone have any recommendations on how to deal with these?

The really annoying thing is that some people have been correcting the links, but not adding the labels or descriptions, which of course causes problems later... I have noticed that an awful lot of users have been emptying items manually, but then not proposing them for deletion. This leaves empty items. Can't these people be warned after merging two items that the one left over should be deleted? Or is this not a problem for Wikidata in the short/mid-term? I'm not even sure if there's a guideline on this; but it seems to me why help, if you're only gonna do a half-arsed job? I guess that's the way it goes, but I'd still be interested in any tips as I have my ear on the ground! Jared Preston (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The category issue you noted about 'people from' and 'people born in' is a headache. Yes. Sorry I haven't any recccommendations.
The people correcting the links may not be English speakers and may be adding labels in other languages that you can't see.
Leaving articles with no items and not deleting them is slightly irritating but spotting items with no sitelinks is just the sort of job bots can do while sorting tricky merges is what bots cannot do so I would not discourage these helpers.
Does that help? Filceolaire (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comment "Категория:Родившиеся в Ахене" translates: "Category:Those born in Aachen". It Is Me Here t / c 10:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  • JFYI. In Russian Wikipedia the 2 kinds of categories have a clear sense: "Category:Persons:Moscow" contains all persons strongly factually connected with Moscow (though it can be sometimes vaguely defined, I must confess) and "Category:Born in Moscow" is self-describing. Further: categories like "Persons:Moscow" always contains as a subcategory "Category:Died in Moscow". I can't figure out what English wikipedians mean by "People from" and why they don't have "Categories by deathplace". --Infovarius (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Change property proposal process

I think it would be better if property proposal was not classified as they are now, but were linked to a class, such as rocket (Q41291). The property proposals should be discussed on the discussion page of rocket (Q41291), and announced on property proposal pages. Any thoughts ? TomT0m (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you give an example of such a request, using, say, any existing attribute specific to that "class" rocket (Q41291)? - LaddΩ chat ;) 23:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we should CREATE ONE PAGE for each request, such as Wikidata:Property proposal/<property name in English>.--GZWDer (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I just checked some article about space rockets, like Saturn 1, and I found that low earth orbit workload would be a property that would fit (maybe it would fit another type of vehicles but it seems specific enough).
The procedure would look like : I want to add that property, maybe with several other one. I go to [[38]], where they might be a list of properties that fits, or more. I put a template, say {{Property addition to a class|max low earth orbit workload}} if it's a new property, or {{Property addition to a class|P001|P002|...}} if the property already exists. The template puts maintenance category on these page, and a bot fix the announce in some of the project pages. The asker might add some additional information about the property : how much we should expect (1 by launcher model), zéro or more for the number of launches with that type of launches, what qualifier we should expect on statements with that property ...
But the example might not have been chosen well enough : I should have chosen the launcher type item. Ariane 5, for example, is a rocket launcher type. It's also a subclass of rocket launchers, and all the actual Ariane 5 rockets are instances of that subclass. TomT0m (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Need of mass deletions

There are probably a few thousands empty items left after I moved the sitelinks to the proper item (which shouldn't have been created in the first place, but that's a different story).[39] Are empty items deleted automatically after a certain time, or is it best to provide a list for someone else to perform the mass deletion? -- Edinwiki (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You can start a deletion request, but in reality empty items doesn´t matter enough to care about them. --FischX (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Add deletion requests at Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions. Filceolaire (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Need to create My town near by Madurai

hello sir,

                  i just want to create a info about my town (Silaiman is located in Madurai District.but i couldnt 

please help me to create it

en:Madurai_district#Divisions lists 13 talukas in Madurai district, none of which seem to be called Silaiman. ta:மதுரை_மாவட்டம் lists 7 but again no Silaiman. To create a new page on either of these ask at the project chat page for that wikipedia - these are listed at Project:Village pump (Q16503).

en:Wikipedia:Teahouse is another good place for beginners to get help. Wikipedia:Teahouse (Q11059110) has a list of similar pages on other wikipedias. Filceolaire (talk) 15:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Trademark discussion

Hi, apologies for posting this in English, but I wanted to alert your community to a discussion on Meta about potential changes to the Wikimedia Trademark Policy. Please translate this statement if you can. We hope that you will all participate in the discussion; we also welcome translations of the legal team’s statement into as many languages as possible and encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please see the Trademark practices discussion (on Meta-Wiki) for more information. Thank you! --Mdennis (WMF) (talk)

The archivebot is missing a date in this thread, and is therefor not sending it to the archive. By this, my nonsens-response, a date is added, and the bot can act in a few days. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Vagrancy

Vagrancy is linked to "Gens du voyage", beyond any political debate occuring at the moment in France about that issue, I believe a more rightful link should "Vagabondage"

Thanks

This thread also needs a date somewhere. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

We need your opinion

Only one week before the end of the decision part of the RfC Wikidata:Requests for comment/Guidelines for RfC process. I can only recommand you to have a look at some of the current RfCs in order to decide if the current RfC process needs improvement. And try to answer this question: how do I know which is the state of a RfC ? Snipre (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Please make this a more neutral notification next time. --Rschen7754 01:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You are free to provide statistics about succesful RfC's, number of participants (discussion and vote) vs number od wikidata contributors or discussion duration to show the success of the current procedure. I just want to know the opinion of contributors and I ask a direct question: no propaganda. Snipre (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Project chat is not the place to openly canvass for the success of your RFC. Please do not do this again. --Rschen7754 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Be more precise: what do I have to avoid in the future ? Trying to attract people in order to have more opinions about one topic ? I thought there was a large consensus (see above) about too low involvement in discussion during RfC. Snipre (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
"I can only recommand you to have a look at some of the current RfCs in order to decide if the current RfC process needs improvement. And try to answer this question: how do I know which is the state of a RfC ?" appears to me to be canvassing, because it posits that the question that is being asked in the RFC is the same question as you're asking here, which is not the case. Really, the best way to avoid that problem is to keep your notification short by saying something like "This RFC is closing—please participate soon!" and just that. --Izno (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Rschen: It would help if you had precisely identified what you perceive to be canvassing. A neutral notification is not itself canvassing, nor is it canvassing to ask for further feedback, especially prior to the closing date. It seems to me that other wikis have different rules or customs on the matter, so please be a little more understanding in the future. --Izno (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
+1 Vogone talk 23:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, considering the recent debate at commons:Commons:Checkusers/Requests/INeverCry about posts on the German Wikipedia, as well as our past universal condemnation of canvassing at requests for permissions on this very project despite our lack of an official definition of canvassing, I think it is fairly well known what the standard on canvassing is on projects such as meta/commons/wikidata, and something that I quite frankly would assume that all of the participants here are familiar with. I would assume that anyone who has edited long enough to have any rights related to the closing of discussions should know what canvassing is, especially since canvassing only takes place around discussions. I find it problematic to have any editor closing discussions on global projects who does not understand what canvassing is on global projects. That is why every request for adminship on this project where the participant has participated in what we consider canvassing has failed, even if their home wiki does not agree that it was canvassing—and rightfully so. --Rschen7754 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
As I see it this is information about an RfC, not canvassing. Jeblad (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
You may also want to note Wikidata:Bistro#Besoin_de_votre_opinion. --Rschen7754 09:12, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot for deleting orphaned Item

I was just wondering, I do find people who do merging of two item and do not request the orphaned item for deletion. Is there such a bot already running? Where if an item has no wikilink, wikivoyagelink and commons link then, it would be automatically deleted? --Napoleon.tan (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I thinked about this again. and there are item that have no link but are notable in wikidata. i guess there should be another condition to find all those orphaned items like if a link from the item was removed and was added to another item. --Napoleon.tan (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, an orphaned (i.e. no link to it) item with no link to anything else surely does not serve any purpose, does it? That's a simple enough condition for bots to delete/report such items, and merges being done manually there are just a few of them, so why even bother manually requesting deletion if such items are properly orphaned and link-blanked? -- Bjung (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There has been a request for adminship permission for Hazard-Bot to delete items like proposed here (the discussion linked there now is archived). There was, however, no consensus to give this permission to the bot. --YMS (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Later on there can be orphaned items at least for authors and books if we want to supply data for references in client pages. Because of this I don't think it is possible to automate deletion of items… If we say that an author should always refer at least one book, we still can have orphaned islands of items. Jeblad (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Turning "English" in Commons Sitelink to - with a hack for now

Hi, I just wanted to let you know: I abused my admin power to add a line to the Commons.js so that it doesn't display "English" as the language for Commons for the casual reader of the page (but rather a "-"). This was not an office action, and I explicitly want to tell you that I did this without the appropriate power vested in me, so you can simply remove it again if you don't like it. (This are the two diffs: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.js&diff=prev&oldid=72510307 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.js&diff=prev&oldid=72510718 )

Also, this is not a proper solution. We are working on it, and we hope to have something there for the next deployment (October 14). It also does not work when you add a link to commons and neither after you have added it, so it really sucks, but it is a bit better than before. Sorry for that! --Denny Vrandečić (WMDE) (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the planned-for solution? --Izno (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
We're still figuring out the details but it should definitely not say English. Possible solutions are 1) turning English into - or multi 2) making the group a group for all such special wikis that have only one link and replacing English with Commons 3) something completely different we have not thought of yet. It currently looks like we'll do 1 for now and later 2. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Ideally (3) there should be no column like "language" for Commons-like projects. Infovarius (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Right. It'd say something like "Project" or so. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding parts of articles

Hi all. I wonder whether it's possible to add a part of an article (I wanted to add en:Walker_(mobility)#Rollators to Q14164010). Regards, Trijnstel (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikidata does not support interwiki links with anchors. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
But you can create a redirect on enwp to "Walker (mobility)#Rollators", and add that redirect to the page. But you have to deactivate the redirect while the link is added, and thereafter activate it again. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Note that even if this is possible, it will make the lookup of item fail from the clients and it will make the uniqueness constraint fail. That means the simple one to one relationship between repository items and client pages are broken, and as the system is right now it can't be reestablished. You can link to a fragment on a client page, but that client page can't use information from the repository item. In short; bad idea. Jeblad (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answers all. :) Then I won't try to add interwikis with anchors. Trijnstel (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Asking for assistance

WD:Mineralogy task force
Property:P138 (Named after)
For example: axinite (Q664861), named in 1797 by René Just Haüy (Q316515) from the Greek αξίνα ("axina") for "axe"
Is it possible to state "named after this language word" on Wikidata?
You can probably used named after qualified by the language property. That's the closest you're going to get I think. --Izno (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thx --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. Filceolaire (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thx Filceolaire --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
WD:Database reports/Constraint violations
Property talk:P484 and Property talk:P579
Is it possible to check if all minerals (item) have the first two lines (en label and en description)?
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Items show with a name with the new version, this is nice.
But we need now a tool to show us which items don't have an English label and/or an English description.
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Restricting edit to logged in user

Hello, I have been patroling the recent changes and I keep on noticing non-logged user (ip user) are the ones who keep on vandalizing the wikidata. I know that wikidata followed the wikipedia ruled to allow even non logged user to edit. But I think since data is easily vandalized, I was wondering if wikidata community could vote to require logged user to be able to edit wikidata. I know that the community wants to be open to as many people as possible but I think the same rule should not be done in wikidata since a vandal could easily destroy the wiki link.

What does the community think? Is requiring only logged in data requirement possible with the current wiki software? --Napoleon.tan (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The wiki software is MediaWiki, therefore it is possible to prevent it. I am strongly opposed to such an idea. While it would possibly be good to prevent IPs editing, it can be damaging to the knowledgebase as it defeat the purpose of having all Wikimedia Foundation's projects be freely and openly editable. If an IP is causing problems, report them to administrators through the noticeboard, talk pages or even via IRC and we will deal with them appropriately. Vandalism occurring from IPs is not a Wikidata only problem, every openly editable project whether operated by the Wikimedia Foundation or by some third party company, will always experience vandalism. Stopping every IP editing is not the way to deal a small bunch of IPs as generalisation of every IP being 'a vandal/non-constructive' is a very bad idea and if we prevent editing for all IPs, it will badly reflect on all of us. John F. Lewis (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand why stopping IP editing would be bad on all of us? I think that an IP may as well be annonymous because some internet provider provide dynamic IP so a vandal would just move from one IP to another. Hence you cannot ban that user properly. I am saying that the nature of data that wikidata provides is more unnoticeable than the other wiki project. For wikipedia, you can assume a vandalism when there are foul words or massive data deletion to auto detech vandalism. For wikidata, if a vandal would want to swap wiki links, it is very difficult to detect against a legitimate wiki link edit. I think the argument that because wikidata is being used by all wikipedia (for example claims), would mean more people would notice vandals immediately. But I think most wiki still do not use the wiki data in their wiki. Hence, it is harder to detect wiki vandals. Also, for other wiki project, people go to wiki articles to read the articles once in a while, while in wikidata, people do not go to wikidata page to read them. --Napoleon.tan (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I am about 99% sure that the WMF will not allow this. The ability of anonymous users to edit is part of the principle that anyone can edit. IPs are capable of making constructive contributions (as are most IP edits I've seen).--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I guess that they will not allow this. But I think people would inevitably miss some vandals. --Napoleon.tan (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Jasper Deng is correct. The ability of anonymous users to edit is a founding principle. However, we should (and do) find ways to combat vandalism, of course. There are a number of pre-existing tools for this (e.g., AbuseFilter, FlaggedRevs, etc.), but additional tools can also be implemented. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I wonder why contributing to Commons (= uploading files) is restricted to logged in users then … Vogone talk 16:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I am actually wondering if WMF has done any cost-benefit of allowing using ip edits. For wikipedia, or other article wiki, I understand that some people that are shy and very private may opt not to create article if they are not anonymous. Hence the benefit of them being able to write their knowledge and share to everyone points on the positive side even with the treat of vandalism.

However, for the wikidata. I do not see that data being withheld and not shared freely to the world just because people are shy about their privacy. Data is data, and it would be objective or non emotional as long as there is claim. --Napoleon.tan (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikidata content is disputable just like any wiki content. For example, POV-pushers might edit war over the nationality of a person. As with any public wiki, creating an account might take time, and anonymous editing allows hands-on experiences (as John pointed out).--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I have personally been wondering if we should go to flagged revisions. But then, I fear that we may not be able to keep up with the reviewing backlog. --Rschen7754 19:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm completely mistaken, FlaggedRevs work by keeping rendered HTML-pages for old versions and then delivering them to the user if they have special quality preferences. In Wikidata the rendered HTML page is just an edit interface for the underlaying JSON structure. In short; delivering old HTML-pages in FlaggedRevs doesn't make sense. Jeblad (talk) 12:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Napoleon.tan's idea is very tempting, especially as bots edit (logically) without checking previous edits. Littledogboy (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

One problem here is that you can today be loged in on WP, but "anonymous" here at the same time. Being blocked from editing by the software only because the cookies fails when switching project, would be very frustrating! This is for example me in most cases today. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It certainly would be an issue considering how broken logging in is right now. Sometimes I do get logged out with every pageload. On a separate note, if you or anyone else wants their IP hidden during this fun time, ping Rschen or myself on IRC or email oversight@wikidata.org Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Reply to the sidenote: That I am using the only availible ISP in this nighbourhood is not a secret. And the ip is dynamic, so there is no guarantee that I am behind all those edits on all projects. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Languenge link: new system is bugged (or absurd)

As for the strawberry with Polish pages (see above), in Italian wiki we have "Ambasciata" (Embassy) and "Missione diplomatica" (Diplomatic mission), while in English wiki there is only one page for the second. The new system to add a language link wants a correspondence 1to1 among the pages so it does not permit me to add a language link to "Ambasciata" page since "Diplomatic mission" is already linked to "Missione diplomatica". This is a really annoying thing, since there a lots of examples where in a language there is only page about an argument, while in an other language the argument is handled in several pages (for example, TV series). This bug has to be fixed soon. SkZ (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is by design. The phase 2 of Wikidata associates information (data) with a particular entity. That means that every entity needs to have a unique linkage to its description on an external wiki. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is by design. And yes, it can be annoying. It will be easier to handle once Wikidata allows you to add links to redirects. In the meantime, there is a workaround - set up a temporary soft redirect and link to that, before changing it (back) into a hard redirect. I've done en:Embassy for you. --Avenue (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Abraham of Bulgaria

In attempting to add the Russian Wikipedia article to the side bar of Abraham of Bulgaria, I encountered the following error:
Site link Авраамий Болгарский is already used by item Q4056008.

I don't know what is happening here are the Russian Wikipedia link is definitely not showing up under the languages side bar of the English Wikipedia entry.

Is anyone able to work out what the problem is? Thank you, in advance, for any assistance rendered! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Fixed One of the items had a Bulgarian link to the article, and the other item had a link to a redirect to the same article, creating an interwiki conflict. The Anonymouse (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion syntax

What's the syntax to include only one statement for each property on Wikipedia? I'm trying to fetch Property:P6 (head of government) from Zurich, but using returns a list with dozens of names. What should I write to get only one statement (in this case, the current mayor)?--Underlying lk (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this will be provided by ranks in the future, see WD:GLOSS. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that rank is correct, «rank is for is a quality factor», in these case is better to filter by date --ValterVB (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe {{#invoke:PropertyLink|property|p6}} (using module:PropertyLink)? --Stryn (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Using the PropertyLink module works for me, though it doesn't offer a way to fetch any statements but the most recent.--Underlying lk (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The en:Module:Wikidata reads each of the values into a Lua table and then returns them concatenated. It would be straightforward to modify the Lua code to filter by given criteria before returning. The question is, given that this is a generic function how would you want to specify the filter in the #invoke (at present it's called like this: {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|p26|FETCH_WIKIDATA}})? I must also ask if filtering and querying shouldn't really be done at the wikibase code level? We can carry on performing these functions in Lua in modules on each Wikipedia, but it seems to me that it would become wasted effort if the next generation of wikibase code exposes functions to filter, sort and query. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikintelligence - your comments on Meta for a grant proposal

Dear colleagues from Wikidata, I have drafted a proposal for an Individual Engagement Grant: Wikintelligence.

It is a proposal to conduct a feasibility study by a scientific research institute, for using Wikidata in the long-term goal as an open Artificial Intelligence for improving quality of Wikipedia articles. Funding should be for the most part by local authorities or by FFG - Austrian Research Promotion Agency. This could be a model for further funding of Wikimedia research projects, especially of Wikidata.

Could you please have a look, comment, give me tips to improve it? m:Grants:IEG/Wikintelligence Thank you! Kind regards

Edgar

Projekt ANA (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Your link "m:Grants:IEG/Wikintelligence" is broken. Jeblad (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

How to identify an item/claim/reference if ids/hashes are missing

Assume you need to identify some item/claim/reference and you don't have any valid id/hash for those. The ids re the q-numbers for items and UUIDs for claims (usually called GID in Wikibase), and the hashes are internal numbers identifying references (I guess it will be done the same way for qualifiers). What is the best strategy, especially when you must automate the process? I have some ideas (basically require some specific property values) but I would like to see how others are doing this. Note that using labels and aliases could give several matches, so it is still necessary to give additional constraints. Jeblad (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Similar problem? Wikidata:Project_chat#Adding_parts_of_articles --Danrok (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Category descriptions and bots

Hello. Today I found this (done on 3 August): InkoBot overwriting category descriptions with "Wikipedia category" (and translations) for several languages including English. Am I the only one to find that is very stupid? My reasons:

  • The description can be false. Since the addition of Wikivoyage, a category is not necessarily only about Wikipedia. The example given does have Wikivoyage links, so there's no excuse.
  • Describing a category as a generic category and a normal page as some real world topic is inconsistant: category description then becomes a "meta"-description that can be added more intelligently (as an "instance of Wikimedia category" property) than slapping "Wikipedia category" to all description fields. Isn't a description supposed to describe the topic, even for categories? If not, then what's the point of having description fields for categories? BTW, I can't agree with the help page recommending to start category descriptions with "Wikipedia category about": that's just information mismatch (why not start all normal page descriptions with "Wikipedia article about" then?), doesn't work with Wikivoyage and is useless as help to the reader (Wikidata is a database of objects that are not dependent upon the existence of a same-topic page on some Wikimedia project).
  • There's already an "instance of Wikimedia category" added now by bots. No need to duplicate the information. Now all the "Wikipedia category" crap should be removed and overwrites reverted IMO.
  • Isn't a bot supposed to not overwrite existing information with nearly useless filling crap?

What do you think? I hope that damage will be reversed. -- Bjung (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Bots are like people. Some do a nice job, some make mistakes and some are vandals :[ --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We have our 15 millionth item! --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 11:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we have: #15000000 ;) --Stryn (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
we don't have 15m items but 15m Qid --Rippitippi (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Domatium

Moved from the talk page.

I am unsure, whether I am right here, but I hope you can help. There exist now 2 pages for Domatium, one containing the German expression ([40]), and another one for other languages ([41]). Both pages must be united, but I don't know, how. Regards --IKAl (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done. You can do it yourself in the future if you enable the merge gadget (from the preferences).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I activated merge, let's see. --IKAl (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)