User talk:ArthurPSmith

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search

See User talk:ArthurPSmith/Archive for older discussions.

Pywikibot badge[edit]

I moved the badges to the general user namespace. So it is {{User Pywikibot advanced}}. --Tobias1984 (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Arthur, you might be interested in the issue raised here. Thanks. --Gikü (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a note on the property proposer's talk page. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


Hello ArthurPSmith, thank you for creating this property. I think it should only be used as a qualifier for academic degree (P512). Could you please add that to the property properties? Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Jonathan Groß: - thanks, I hadn't remembered that it was planned to be used only as a qualifier. I adjusted the instance of (P31) statement; if there are other changes you think needed you should be able to make them yourself now that the property exists. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

wikidata-externalid-url tool[edit]

Hi! It seems like there is an issue regarding the wikidata-externalid-url tool and the property IMDb ID (P345). See example. Regards —Cocu— t 20:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks @Cocu: investigating right now. I know there was some maintenance going on on the tools server but it looks like it's been down for over a day now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh, I thought they would restart tools automatically - I guess not. It's back up now. I'll have to pay more attention to those downtime messages I guess! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Enciclopedia Treccani[edit]

Hello ArthurPSmith. I stumbled upon Treccani ID (P3365) today. How is it different from Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (P1986)? Jonathan Groß (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

As I understand it from the property proposal discussion the dictionary is a part of the encyclopedia. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

That seems right. I'm still wondering how the two properties should be used, respectively. Jonathan Groß (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

Periodic table[edit]

Are you the maintainer of It looks like someone has broken it. :( - Nikki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikki: - actually Ricordisamoa is the maintainer, but I've helped and know a little about it. But it looks ok to me right now, what did you see that was broken? ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh - somebody messed around with magnesium (Q660). Can you figure out the problem from the history? ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki: Please see Wikidata talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Elements and periods --Ricordisamoa 23:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki, Ricordisamoa: well for now I reinstated the subclass of (P279) relationship and the ptable app looks fine again. I guess if there is a firm decision to switch to "part of" we should adjust the app... ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The query could be changed to support both subclass of (P279) and part of (P361), but I'd prefer the ontology, of which the Chemistry WikiProject shall be the authoritative source, to stay consistent :) --Ricordisamoa 01:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Defining formula[edit]

Thank you for your valuable feedback on my edits regarding the defining formula. The reason why I am adding those formulae to Wikidata is that it is a part of my master's thesis in which I add mathematical formulae to Wikidata which are extracted from English Wikipedia and then based on these formulae I build a Question and answer system. This system will allow users to ask mathematical questions in English and Hindi, and based on those questions, the system will retrieve the related mathematical formula from Wikidata by parsing the natural language input and allow users to get a calculated result for their desired values. You guessed it correctly that I extracted the first formula from all the mathematics related articles on Wikipedia which is obviously not the most accurate way of getting correct results. However, the results are accurate enough to be uploaded to Wikidata. Since I was working on my thesis in the Wikimedia office in Berlin for one month, I showed the results to them and the community was satisfied with the results and gave me the permission to upload them into Wikidata. Furthermore, this sub-task of the whole project is very important because I need these formulae to be present in Wikidata so that they can be used by the question and answer system. I will try my best to eliminate most of the false results like muon lifetime and hope that my contribution to Wikidata can be more useful for further advancements. I will once again have a look at the formulae list to do the necessary amendments and then I will continue with the uploading.

@Yash nagar: you might want to filter your items based on their instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) relationships. For example, nothing that is an instance or subclass of physical object (Q223557) should have a "defining formula". ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Thank you very much for the suggestion and a good example to start with. I will definitely do the changes and I apologize for the errors I made earlier.

Importing identifiers from GRID[edit]


Congratulations for your work of aligning GRID with Wikidata, it looks very useful! I have noticed that GRID contains a lot of other identifiers, such as ISNI ids. It seems to me that many of these ids have not been imported in Wikidata. Is this a deliberate choice or due to a lack of time / resources? Do we need to wait for GRID to be entirely matched before that? It seems fairly easy to do with QuickStatements but I wanted to check with you before that. I was thinking about importing the following (only for items that currently have a GRID id):

What do you think? − Pintoch (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pintoch: Go ahead! I was planning on getting to that especially now that GRID is itself provided under CC-0, but it would be great to have help in getting this data imported! If you can, please add references to the GRID release you are using for the information. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, my QuickStatements are ready (with references), I will perform them after a few checks. − Pintoch (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for adding all these statements to so many institutions, it really helped! The constraint violation report for Ringgold identifiers just got a lot smaller. − Pintoch (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, it was my attempt to whittle down the constraint violations list for GRID itself - glad to help! ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please tell your bot to stop adding GRIDs of subsidiaries to parent companies (like Microsoft (Q2283), BASF (Q9401)), as we already agreed on and revert those incorrect adds. Thanks. --Jklamo (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not running now, I was just running it this afternoon based on some analysis run over the last few weeks. However, I don't think these additions were incorrect - they were based on the URL's and wikipedia links provided by GRID - GRID itself is pointing to these wikidata QID's in one way or another. I think GRID has gone a bit overboard with these separate id's for each country a company has some presence in, and it would be better to merge the GRID id's. If that's not happening then these duplicates are still a good source for cases where we do want to split them up into separate items (if that's what we want). ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: I am happy to do the splitting. I have a script for that. I doubt we can convince GRID to merge these identifiers, as this is consistent with their policy. I think it is still useful to have items for each national subsidiary, because there are quite a few claims that are specific to the local subsidiary (headquarters location, website sometimes, identifier in a national company database, leadership, inception date…) − Pintoch (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Pintoch  ! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
By the way, still no sign of their May release - maybe we have to wait until June to get the reported duplicates sorted out? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
GRID is not always correct with the URL to wikis, just do not relay on them. Approach having different identifier for different entities is absolutely correct, problem is just Wikidata sometime do not have items for subsidiaries. Adding GRID indentifiers of subsidiaries to parent company item is simply wrong, they are not matching and only one correct identifier is obscured by these.--Jklamo (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: I agree with you that we do not want these ids to end up on the same item. But the good thing is that we have constraint violation reports for that, and the fix can be automated. You can see what the process looks like on GlaxoSmithKline (Q212322) (history). APSbot added a bunch of GRID ID (P2427) in December 2016, and I moved them to separate items last month. Ideally that could be done directly by APSbot but creating items with bots can be a bit dangerous sometimes. Putting the ids in Wikidata is already useful: otherwise, we do not even know they exist. − Pintoch (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Formatting URLs[edit]

Hello there. I think I need your help to have UltraSignup runner ID (P3585) work, possibly through this. Can you have a look? Thierry Caro (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help - what should a working URL look like, do you have an example? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: - just pinging you in case you didn't see my query, do you have more details on what's needed? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. A working URL for Ruby Muir (Q20801602) is Unfortunately, with formatter URL (P1630) set to$1 and Muir's ID set to fname=Ruby&lname=Muir, as they should be, the URL is automatically transformed into, which does not lead anywhere. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, ok, URL encoding issues. Ok, I'll look into this today! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: it's working now! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. Unfortunately it still does not work in fr:Modèle:Bases sport, but whatever! At least it works here! I may have another request of the same type then. Europeana Fashion creator ID (P3482) works fine with one-word IDs like Carven for carven (Q2940704) but it fails to provide a correct link when you have to use something like Academy of Art University for Academy of Art University (Q2822225). Spaces are automatically converted into something like, but should not. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The problem was the '#' character, which never gets passed to the externalid-url service. You have to encode that too as %23 - I just updated the formatter URL for Europeana Fashion creator ID (P3482) and it should work now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Perfect. Thank you very much for your diligence. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Universities[edit]

Logo for the Wikidata Wikiproject Universities


There are a few of us who seem to be interested in improving the coverage of academic institutions in Wikidata, so I have started the WikiProject Universities to coordinate our efforts. I'd like to make a sort of dashboard of the progress on various tasks, which would help us find out what is a good use of our time. (For instance by avoiding to add manually some stuff that can be imported from some database.) Feel free to join!

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, looks great, I have a couple of ideas... ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata ExternalId URL[edit]

Please respond to phab:T160205 otherwise I'll go ahead and request the removal of this tool. Also pinging @Jura1, Pigsonthewing, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): —Dispenser (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dispenser: I've responded, however I'm not sure what you are asking for. Privacy issues for this were discussed previously on project chat. Tool labs hides all incoming IP addresses via a proxy. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
The privacy policy does not allow WMF domain to third-party domain redirects. You can add an interstitial (like Special:GoToInterwiki/google:) or host on a non-WMF server. Dispenser (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Step through it for me, I'm not following. What is the "third-party domain redirect" here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually I just commented on the Phab ticket, I think I see what you are saying. Please continue discussion there. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


What do you think of the proposal ? I think it's worthwhile to create it but it seems stalled and given the votes that are there, I think it would be good if at least another person supports it before creation. ChristianKl (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I've looked at it but I really have no knowledge of medicine or anatomy or the quality of the reference in question, nor have I really looked at how this has been done in related cases, so I don't feel qualified to comment, sorry! ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)


Dear ArthurPSmith,

you have been on Wikidata for a long time, and made alot of good edits. I see very few errors and you respond well to feedback. You already have experience as property creator and are a great help in this subject. Maybe you should request an adminship. Wikidata needs reliable people to fulfill this function and help the community at large. I would be happy to nominate you. Let me know.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Taketa: Well I guess it's been almost 2 years! Thanks for the recommendation, but I'd like to think about it for a bit. There are a lot of areas in wikidata I have not had much experience (I have only done a tiny bit of counter-vandalism, and I have no personal experience with rollbacks). I do feel it's an important project so I'd like to help out more but maybe I need to learn a bit more first. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your self evaluation. Take your time and let me know when you have thought it over/feel ready. In general most admin work is not hard to learn. The main aspect is that people need to be reliable/trusted and thoughtful. They need to be able to learn how to do it. You show these abilities, and I believe you can learn the rest. If you want, I can give you rollback so you can gain experience with the function. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

GRID company items[edit]

Hi, I noticed your mass creation of GRID company items. I welcome this, but please consider to add also headquarters location (P159) to that items (city in GRID item) and add coordinate location (P625) as qualifier of headquarters location (P159), not as a standalone property. Thanks.--Jklamo (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion but a little tricky. Most of the import were colleges, institutes, hopsitals, etc for which I don't think "headquarters location" is right. Also I was just reading out the "city" as a string, so turning that into a wikidata id is a bit more complicated. ArthurPSmith (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Standalone coordinate location (P625) for company items is a constraint, so 9000+ new company items (without headquarters location (P159)) were created, so that is considerable amount worth to be improved. I know it may be tricky to read it out, but still fixing errors will be much easier than adding headquarters location (P159) to 5000+ items by hand. Note that ISNI (P213) from GRID items is worth to be imported as well.--Jklamo (talk) 09:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well maybe it shouldn't be a constraint - many companies really do have one physical location, most small manufacturers for instance. The total import was about 40,000 new items (as mentioned in the bot request). I'm currently working on sorting out duplicates - despite efforts to match earlier it looks like there were one or two thousand that actually did have wikidata items before, based on non-English label matches that were hard to match up before the import. But yes we do have plans to import ISNI and also the organization relationship data (which is limited, but there is some of it) from GRID. I think Pintoch has done some work on this also and might do the ISNI bit if I don't get to it first. So I think one of us will certainly have a chance to try to sort out the headquarters location issue - I wouldn't say it's unambiguous from the source here though (GRID just lists the geo information as an "address", not as headquarters address). ArthurPSmith (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a good job for the OpenRefine reconciliation interface. (Take all wikidata items that are companies with a GRID id and no headquarters location (P159), reconcile their GRID location to an item, add it as headquarters location (P159)). The Geonames ID provided by GRID could also be useful. I'll do that. − Pintoch (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Jklamo: the import of coordinate location (P625) is finished, I'll look into ISNI (P213) and other identifiers later. − Pintoch (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. Note that there is already periodic bot task to move coordinate location (P625) to headquarters location (P159) for company items, so it is enough to add headquarters location (P159). Good luck with ISNI (P213), I noticed that in ISNI items there are usually much more precise names (labels) of companies, GRID is a bit casual about accurateness of subsidiary names, so in a case of multiple subsidiaries it is sometimes a bit challenging to determine, to which company is GRID referring. It would be great if you can extract names from ISIN items and add them as alias.--Jklamo (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The import is running. I could actually do it for other institutions using located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for non-company items (or specifically academic institutions)? What is the preferred way to state the location for these? (I imagine just located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and coordinate location (P625) as separate claims?) − Pintoch (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the way it's usually done - located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and coordinate location (P625) separately. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, I'll do that. I also wonder how you discovered these thousands of duplicate items? − Pintoch (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
SPARQL query for rdfs:label matches between two items, where one has a GRID ID and one does not. A lot of the matches are bogus (yes there's lots of items labeled "Ministry of Health" that are from different places) but there's quite a few that are specific enough they seem to be real, I'm slowly going through them - a lot of Chinese ones for instance that the wikidata item didn't have an English label at all before. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pintoch, Jklamo: I actually think that the addition of coordinates via P625 directly as properties to items such as Czech Zoological Society (Q30258472) is wrong. Technically, they themselves are not located at that position. It is their headquarters location (P159) that is located in there. We should really come to some sort of agreement on this, either here or somewhere else, because this is a fairly widespread issue. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vojtěch Dostál: yes, we have discussed that at length here. − Pintoch (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Vojtěch Dostál: note from the above discussion all you need to do is add an appropriate headquarters location (P159) for such an item and a bot will automatically move the P625. Unfortunately the GRID "type" system was far from detailed enough to distinguish things like scientific societies which are better described by "headquarters location" from things like hospitals which aren't, so there was no automated way to do this "right" from the data we had. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I've completed the "de-duplication" work as far as I could get it - about 2300 of the 40,000 new items have been merged with earlier wikidata entries. There are surely some more dups in there - if SPARQL was a little more flexible I might be able to get a better list but I haven't figured out a way to do a more complete search that doesn't time out. Hopefully we've got most of them. I've also merged a handful with newer items that were entered after the GRID import 2 weeks ago - for example some hospitals in China have had new zhwiki pages added, but they already had wikidata entries with the correct Chinese name - does the bot automatically adding new wikidata entries for pages do any kind of checking for existing items? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you SO MUCH, that must have been a daunting task! − Pintoch (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

chart of nuclides[edit]

Hi ArthurPSmith, do you know why some isotopes are not displayed in the chart of nuclides? Pamputt (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

uranium-235 (Q848497) looks like a lone mistake.
Other uraniums have following claims:
uranium-235m (Q18888906), uranium-236m2 (Q18888908), uranium-237 (Q18845543), uranium-238m (Q18888909), uranium-239 (Q18845544), uranium-239m1 (Q18888910)
d1g (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
By removing the instance of (P31) statements you have cut out something like half the nuclides from this chart: that is autogenerated based on a wikidata SPARQL query. I don't even know if what the subclass of (P279) statements you have replaced them with will allow for the same sort of chart to be autogenerated now. Plus what you have done is obviously inconsistent since things still work for some but not for others - and in a case like U-235 it wasn't findable at all after your edits. Please at least be more careful on this sort of thing. But at the moment I don't even know a practical way to solve it and get the chart working again. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
(P31|P279) should fix everything. P31 is not the most correct property for physical classes
Where query could be located? d1g (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The query was looking for all instances of subclasses (wdt:P31/wdt:P279*) of isotope (Q25276). Replacing P31 with P279 there will not work, because that leaves no way I can see (right now) to distinguish between an actual nuclide such as uranium-235 (Q848497) and the generic classes such as isotope of uranium (Q1369686). The ptable code is on gerrit if you want to look at it: see the instructions here - ptable is under labs/tools/ptable. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
My understanding was that isotope can be only of some element, so we can have these relations using fixed number of P279 links.
Query below should return everything to how it was before edits.
Part on below contributes only 33 "missing" items. d1g (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The following query uses these:

  • Properties: subclass of (P279) View with Reasonator View with SQID, instance of (P31) View with Reasonator View with SQID
    1 SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
    2   { ?item wdt:P279/wdt:P279 wd:Q25276 } # suggested structure with fixed links, 4478; DISTINCT 4476
    3   UNION
    4   { ?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q25276 } # old one with arbitrary depth, 2391; DISTINCT 2265
    6   # BOTH UNION: 6869
    7   # BOTH UNION, DISTINCT: 4509
    8   SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
    9 }

Ok, so maybe it can be fixed, maybe not. Let us see. On a semantic point of view, would it be possible to use instance of (P31) : nuclide (Q108149) on each item in order to identify them clearly and to use a proper query? Pamputt (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd be happy with that solution - it definitely seems more robust than depending on there being exactly two subclass levels below isotope. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pamputt, D1gggg: And D1gggg seems to be busy making the nuclides app completely worthless by continuing his P31 removal spree: Special:Contributions/D1gggg - could you at least WAIT until we have settled this discussion on how we are going to address the problem and actually had a chance to fix the code in ptable and see it working, before making further mass edits? I don't find your actions here very friendly, given that you KNOW they have already caused a problem, and now you are making it worse. ArthurPSmith (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pamputt, D1gggg: I've been trying to rationalize our ontology a bit - this is still very much a work in progress, but I would appreciate your thoughts on my draft ontology for elements, nuclides and chemicals. Basically, I think every specific element and isotope should be treated as leaf nodes in the subclass hierarchy - even though they are abstract, I don't think it makes sense to talk about them having "instances". A "lithium atom" has instances, but there is nothing that "is a" "lithium". ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

isotopes like neon-24 are similarly NOT classes, but non-instantiable abstract concepts.

@ArthurPSmith: overall I agree, but you should word it using items, not words:
subject > instance of (P31) View with SQID < uranium-234 (Q26841207) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
claims should result in "physical object" using following statements
  • isotope of neon is a abstract class (P31/279 eventually leads to class (Q16889133))
Did you mean this or something different? d1g (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

"A is a period 2" or "A si a group 18" also makes no sense - "A is a period 2 element" however would be fine.

I also think
subject > part of (P361) View with SQID < period 2 >
would be more natural, not using P31/P279. d1g (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
d1g - are you seeing some sort of difference between uranium-234 and neon-24? I don't think anything can be an instance of uranium-234. Something can be an instance of a uranium-234 atom, or a uranium-234 nucleus, and so "uranium-234 atom" for example should be a subclass of "physical object". But "uranium-234" itself should not be a subclass of anything. As to using items etc., I do intend to articulate this more concretely in terms of wikidata syntax, I haven't really gotten to that fully yet. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: maybe they aren't different from standpoint of chemistry; then we need to relate other items to "physical" items.
I think that "conglomeration of mass" is what we frequently mean by "physical" "physically" in natural language.
Second definition could be "anything that explainable using laws of physics" (item similar to mathematical object (Q246672)) - i.e. something chemistry wouldn't explain in detail d1g (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Tobias1984 Snipre Physikerwelt Pamputt Petermahlzahn Jibe-b Restu20 Daniel Mietchen TomT0m ArthurPSmith Mu301 Sarilho1 SR5 DavRosen Danmichaelo Ptolusque Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Jasper Deng
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Antony Williams (EPA)
Devon Fyson
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

See Atom classes.svg. You don’t need any kind of abstract uninstanciable concept. At worse you could have
< hydrogen > union of (P2737) View with SQID < values as qualifiers (Q23766486) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
of (P642) View with SQID < hydrogen pure substance >
of (P642) View with SQID < hydrogen atom >
to reflect the polysemy. You also have
< hydrogen pure substance > has part (P527) View with SQID < hydrogen atom >
. What more is needed ? where do your definitions come from to argue ? author  TomT0m / talk page 17:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
TomT0m that is what we have been doing until now, but I believe it to be fundamentally wrong based on the way these terms are defined by the wikipedia pages. You suggest "hydrogen" is the union of "hydrogen as a pure substance" (or "simple substance" I think is the term used here) and the "hydrogen atom". I believe it is a lot more than that. Go to en:Hydrogen; how much of that page is about either of those two meanings for "hydrogen"? A lot of the page discusses hydrogen's abundance in the universe in atomic and ionized states, chemical properties within other molecules, ions and hydrides, its combustion and production, its uses in semiconductors, its biological relevance, the isotopes also, etc. As to the diagram you post, I agree almost entirely with the left-hand side: hydrogen atom should be a subclass of atom, germanium atom should be a subclass of atom, that is correct. Rather than "tritium", the correct item there should be "tritium atom", which would be a subclass of "hydrogen atom". That is all fine - their instances are specific atoms which are physical objects. The problem is the relations between center panel and the right column. "hydrogen atom" is NOT an "instance of" "element". "hydrogen atom" is NOT the same as "hydrogen", and it is "hydrogen" that is the instance of "element". en:Hydrogen atom talks about quite different things than en:Hydrogen, as far as definitions go. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Please follow the link en:chemical element in « hydrogen is a chemical element » in en:hydrogen. You’ll see that it’s a species (a synonym of subclass) of atoms. This fits with hydrogen beeing a subclass of atom. all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus.  »author  TomT0m / talk page 10:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Does "species" mean subclass? I don't think so. In the third paragraph of the article "chemical element" it states "The term "element" is used for atoms with a given number of protons (regardless of whether or not they are ionized or chemically bonded, e.g. hydrogen in water) as well as for a pure chemical substance consisting of a single element (e.g. hydrogen gas)." An element is not simply a subclass of atoms. And we don't have that in our ontology currently anyway - "neon" is not "subclass of" in any way, "atom" right now. I don't think it should be. The fact that we have separate items for "hydrogen" and for "hydrogen atom", as well as for several other elements, also implies that they are not considered synonymous. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Please please please use references. I said a thousand time that mine was . There is two definitions : « all atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. » and « A pure chemical substance composed of atoms with the same number of protons in the atomic nucleus. » The first one is an element as a subclass of atoms, the second one is the one of a class of pure substance. The seciond refers to the union I proposed : the term is used for both. There is also definitions (several) of species like but none actually applies, the first refers to an experiment which is not relevant in the definition of an experiment, the second is about subtypes of elements and don’t apply to the element concept itself. Also note the definition of a taxonomic species : : « a group of closely related, morphologically and physiologically similar individuals.  » : a species is a subclass of individuals. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I also found references to support my interpretation :
1. A species ofatoms  ; all atoms with the same number  of protons in the atomic nucleus. 
2. A pure  chemical substance  composed  of atoms  with  the same  number of protons   in the atomic nucleus. Sometimes this concept is called the elementary substance as distinct  from the chemical element as defined under 1,  but mostly the term chemical element is used for both  concepts.  
La  première  définition  est  retenue  par  les  programmes  scolaires  
français,  elle  se  traduit  par  :  «  Catégorie  d'atomes  :  tous  les atomes  
dont  le  noyau  possède le  même  nombre  de  protons  »
from : translation of the text is french « the first def is used by every french teaching programs, it translates to « category of atoms, every atoms whose kernel has the same numbes of protons » wgich is exacsly what I say. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
references that provide definitions using words are unlikely to be precise enough to definitively answer these questions. We are trying to define "subclass" and "instance" (and possibly other) relationships in a way that makes logical sense. What we have now clearly doesn't. In French, does it make logical sense to say "X est un hydrogène"? What do you think that would mean? Whereas I think "X est un atome d'hydrogène" is clear, and different in meaning. So "hydrogen" "subclass of" "atom" does not seem right. "hydrogen atom" "subclass of" "atom" does. If we follow your suggestion, what would we do with the wikidata item for "hydrogen atom"? Merge it with "hydrogen" (but we can't due to the wikilinks)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"X est un hydrogène" would mean « X is a kind of hydrogen », hence a subtype. It’s meaningless in other acceptations. Why would Wikidata bother about meaningless stuffs ? author  TomT0m / talk page 07:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
because that is what P31 means. According to Wikidata:Relation between properties in RDF and in Wikidata, P31 means the same as "rdf:type", and according to the SPARQL standard for example - rdf:type can be abbreviated 'a', as in ?x a :class is the same as ?x rdf:type :class. If "hydrogène" covers "kinds" of hydrogen, rather than just "hydrogen atoms", then a particular hydrogen atom cannot be "a" "hydrogène", and therefore "hydrogène" cannot represent the class of atoms, it must mean something else. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

significant updates[edit]

Tobias1984 Snipre Physikerwelt Pamputt Petermahlzahn Jibe-b Restu20 Daniel Mietchen TomT0m ArthurPSmith Mu301 Sarilho1 SR5 DavRosen Danmichaelo Ptolusque Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Jasper Deng
Egon Willighagen
Denise Slenter
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Antony Williams (EPA)
Devon Fyson
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry @Pamputt, D1gggg, TomT0m: Please see the latest draft ontology for elements, nuclides and chemicals - I have included both my own version described above, and what I believe TomT0m is suggesting. The actual impact of our differences is not huge, but the details do matter a bit here. Both of them imply the removal of a lot of the existing statements on elements and nuclides, and restoring some of what d1g removed. Please comment on the talk page of the draft, thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree on 1.1 and 1.2; I also added (or it should be Q7946). No comments on other parts. d1g (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Just chiming in after the storm: intuitively I would use both P31 and P279 on hydrogen (Q556), probably with different target items. The P31 would link to an element (possibly via P279*) that represent the class of all the "funny squares that you find in the Mendeleiev table" (I think they are called chemical elements but I have no idea if chemical element (Q11344) is suited for that). The P279 would link (again via P279*) to the class of all atoms, or physical particles, or whatever. But I am neither a physicist nor a philosopher. Anyway, it would be useful to be able to isolate all the "cells of the Mendeleiev table" with a simple P31/P279* query, so that we could also state with properties for this type (P1963) all the data that they are supposed to have. And I find it quite natural to treat isotopes as subclasses of these. It seems possible to reuse the best of both approaches in a consistent way. − Pintoch (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

still not working[edit]

Hi, I come back to my initial request; there are still plenty of holes in the nuclide chart. I skip the discussion above at some point and I do not understand wether something was decided. If so, could you process the nuclides that are missing in the nuclide chart? Pamputt (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate your weighing in on the rough plan, either one of them - essentially the solution will require reverting pretty much all d1g's changes to nuclide P31/P279 statements and while I personally think that's necessary I'm reluctant to do that without more of a weight of opinion from the community here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


You may interesting about Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties. Xaris333 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Xaris333 - I've read the discussion there, I have to say I don't know very much about football or really any sports competitions in general, but it seems to me the competition structure you outline at the top makes sense (I assume those are subclass relations) and I think the rest follows logically. I don't understand what TomT0m is saying there about not using P3450, that seems like the right relationship to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Identifier classification tree[edit]

Thanks for the recent talk. Maybe this tree helps a bit. Each DE, FR are country codes, specifically ISO 2-letter codes. Each is subclass of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code. To inherit all superclass properties it is needed that ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code is a subclass of country code, which in turn is subclass of UID. 23:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling "DE" a class seems a very odd way of thinking about it. Also, what "superclass properties" do you find useful for "DE" to inherit? The subclasses can't inherit the external ids (for example the freebase ID for ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code). There's not much else on any of these wikidata items that seems particularly relevant. More fundamentally, to my mind, is we seem to have a dispute about the meaning of "unique identifier". We can think of a class as a collection, but if everything that is a code used to identify something qualifies to be in the "unique identifier" collection, that collection becomes full of a huge number of duplicate codes that identify different things - i.e. they are very definitely no longer unique. If "DE" is a unique identifier in the collection you are calling the class "unique identifier", how do we know whether it is talking about Germany (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2) or Delaware (FIPS 5-2 US state code) or something completely different? The specific codes are ONLY "unique" within a context of a specific "identifier" - such as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, which I would view as the collection (class) containing the specific instances of codes. I.e. to me it is very clear "DE" is an instance of "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2" which should be one way or another an "instance of" "unique identifier". But apparently there is disagreement on this. You are advocating for something that makes no sense to me at all - and property inheritance seems terribly unconvincing as a reason. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange statements[edit]

  • making ISO 639-3 code 'ara' an instance of ISO 639-2 code [1]
  • turning specific subclass of UID into less specific subclass of machine-readable data [2]
  • making language code a subclass of machine-readable data - (can humans not read language codes?) [3]
  • [4]

There are no items about instances of UIDs. The instances are printed on books, written on paper, etc.

  • I'm not going to argue that d1g is doing a good job here, I've disputed some of his edits before, he made a big mess among the isotopes that is still not cleaned up. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Erroneous coordinate locations added by APSbot[edit]

I was a nice sunny day of walk in this very quiet area of Tokyo, but I could not get a picture of these items, as they were not there.

Maybe the data source used by your bot is wrong, or some erroneous geocoding took place? In any case, would you mind removing the erroneous data? (for the items above and for the others that might have the same problem).

Thanks a lot! :-) Syced (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Syced: Hi - these and the other coordinates were stated with a reference, to the GRID database release. If you follow the GRID ID link you'll see where the GRID app maps these to. The problem is probably an uncertainty issue, which they are not providing. But it is stated information in that source directly from the json dump of their data so according to wikidata policy I don't think it's wrong to leave it there. However you might want to deprecate these entries based on your personal experience. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Property creation[edit]

Hi Arthur,

I think it's good you closed the other proposal. At least, this way we can move ahead. I hope you don't mind too much that I listed it for deletion.
--- Jura 06:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, thanks. ArthurPSmith (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal waiting[edit]

Hello Arthur,

please have a look at this proposal. It's the same as this but affects an other German state - and is waiting since one whole week. Plese tell me, if something is wrong whis my proposal. Thanks --Quarz (talk) 11:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

well I don't think I've ever been to Bremen, but I've been to Bayern many times! :) I did leave a comment about the id format - from the page I went to for your example, the full ID did seem to have the leading 4 0's as part of the ID. Has that not been used elsewhere? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, Bremen is not as big as Bayern. But people who came here say, that its nice. :) Thank you for your contructive comment. I have answered it. Bremen and Bremerhaven will never have 10.000 or more cultural heritage monuments. So we decided to shorten the id to the significant digits. --Quarz (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

OpenRefine demo: incoming new features[edit]

Hi Arthur,

As the OpenRefine demo is coming up next month I thought you'd be interested to know that I have been working on a few features that are relevant:

  • importing wiki tables: basically, OpenRefine now understands the wikicode of tables and can pre-reconcile the cells of such tables based on the wiki-links in the cells. The idea is that this can be useful when migrating manually-maintained tables to Listeria-based tables. It's still not as flexible as I would like (Wikitables can be very messy!) but the basic functionality is ready.
  • editing Wikidata from OpenRefine: it lets users import datasets in Wikidata with the same UI that they use to add statements manually. They can just drag and drop table columns as values in the statements they add, and these columns will be replaced by their values for each reconciled item. For now this feature relies on QuickStatements but the plan is to bypass that and make edits directly from OpenRefine.

You can try these features on the wikidata-extension branch of the OpenRefine repository. For the second one, you should get a "Wikidata" menu in the top right corner, with a "Edit Wikibase schema" action. Then, you can add statements and save the schema (hopefully it's intuitive enough). Once that is done, you can export to QuickStatements.

I'm not sure if these features will be properly released before WikidataCon, but I guess that gives some idea of what sort of things the tool is heading to.

Also, I have started Wikidata:Tools/OpenRefine to advertise a bit the tool to the community - feel free to improve if you have time.

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Pintoch: - I was just starting to try the wikidata-extension branch and hit a classLoader error:
SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings.
SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/Users/apsmith/src/OpenRefine/server/lib/slf4j-log4j12-1.5.6.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
SLF4J: Found binding in [jar:file:/Users/apsmith/src/OpenRefine/main/webapp/WEB-INF/lib/slf4j-log4j12-1.5.6.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class]
SLF4J: See for an explanation.
SLF4J: Actual binding is of type [org.slf4j.impl.Log4jLoggerFactory]
SLF4J: The requested version 1.5.6 by your slf4j binding is not compatible with [1.6, 1.7]
SLF4J: See for further details.
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.LinkageError: loader constraint violation: when resolving method "org.slf4j.impl.StaticLoggerBinder.getLoggerFactory()Lorg/slf4j/ILoggerFactory;" the class loader (instance of edu/mit/simile/butterfly/ButterflyClassLoader) of the current class, org/slf4j/LoggerFactory, and the class loader (instance of org/mortbay/jetty/webapp/WebAppClassLoader) for resolved class, org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder, have different Class objects for the type LoggerFactory; used in the signature
Any ideas how to fix this? How much of this is in the main branch now (which does work for me)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, and something's broken with the "cell.cross" GREL action - I just get null pointer exceptions for everything now, even doing exactly the same things that used to work. ???? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, "cross" works again, I just had to restart "./refine". Not sure why it didn't work right away, I think that was not a problem last time around. However, in investigating this I did discover the eclipse configuration seems to be broken (some jar files listed in .classpath don't exist for one thing) and running "./refine test" resulted in 1 test broken (related to URL caching). So there seem to be some things needing fixing at least... ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Arthur, sorry yes this branch is a big mess and I will not have much time to clean that up before WikidataCon. I have bitten a bit more than I can chew! I will definitely finish this work at some point. For now, everything on master should be clean (all tests should work, at least they all pass on Travis). That already includes Wikitable import. − Pintoch (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok - actually the last couple of comments from me were regarding master, as I couldn't get wikidata-extension branch to run after the build so I switched back to master. Glad to hear the wikitable import bit is in, I may try that for the demo! Do you use eclipse or something else to work on this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes I use Eclipse and yes I had issues with the config files too… I suspect the issue you had with the URL caching test could be due to a temporary network issue on your side. − Pintoch (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Academic institutions from India[edit]


I remember that in Wikidata:WikiProject_Universities/Scope you pointed out that we were missing many institutions from India. I have created Wikidata:WikiProject_Universities/New items which tracks the latest institutions created and a lot of them are from India! It is nice to see that there is activity where we need. Also, I am thinking about migrating Wikidata:WikiProject_Universities/Scope to Listeria-based tables, so that they get updated automatically.

Cheers − Pintoch (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

nice! I notice many of them don't have sitelinks, I wonder where they're coming from? ArthurPSmith (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
by the way I updated the first few (13) countries on the list with the latest numbers from the query; India has definitely greatly increased its count since you ran that before, although it's clearly still missing a lot. China should have at least 2000, so it's missing a lot too. And I don't really believe Poland has more academic institutions than Germany, France, or Russia, so I expect there are a lot missing from some of those countries still too. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

GRID references[edit]

Hi Arthur. Your bot created GRID Release 2017-05-22 (Q30141628), which is used in a number of articles. In an enwp discussion it was pointed out that the references generated from this were very confusing - in particular, the URL doesn't go to a GRID URL, but to figshare, which isn't very user-friendly. Would it be possible to use a URL to a grid webpage instead for this, or otherwise improve the information in entries like this so that it can be used to generate more useful references? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike - I assumed including the direct GRID link in the reference was redundant since it's there in the external ID section, but I could add that, sure. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
That would be useful, please. The DOI in the infobox also seems to point to Figshare rather than GRID, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good practice to put as reference the identifier the statement was drawn from. That is useful even if the identifier itself is input as a statement, for a lot of reasons. If identifier X happens to be wrong, it is easy to remove everything that was derived from X - and recursively: if another identifier Y was derived from X, we should remove all statements derived from Y, and so on… My identifier edits (adding an ISNI from a GRID, or adding a Ringgold from an ISNI) have already been reverted multiple times because the source identifier was wrong, so it would definitely be useful in these cases. Unless it has already been done, I think it would make sense to formalize that as an "essay" or something like that. − Pintoch (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: the DOI points to the permanent data repository for that edition of GRID - it happens to be on figshare, that's where you would download it. It is I think exactly what you want in a source reference: a persistent identifier pointing to the source. That source (where the GRID dataset is downloaded from) is exactly where the bot that entered these values got the information from so it really is the source of the information. However, I can appreciate people like to have more direct dereferenceable links. But I would add that only as a convenience, the source entry right now is accurate and complete. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch: are you suggesting to use GRID ID (P2427) rather than reference URL (P854) to provide the link? That's reasonable I think, and it does actually add slightly to the specificity of the source reference, so it makes some sense also for future tracking as you suggest. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I would use GRID ID (P2427) directly as a reference (probably along with GRID Release 2017-05-22 (Q30141628)). − Pintoch (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
stated in (P248) -> GRID database (Q27982662), GRID ID (P2427) -> number, edition number (P393) -> GRID Release 2017-05-22 (Q30141628) would be better from my perspective, but that might be getting a bit too complex. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Pintoch, Mike Peel: I've pulled in about 1400 new institutions from the latest GRID release and used this method in the source fields, does it look ok? See for example Federación Alba Andalucía (Q41568673). I don't currently have a bot script to update old records along these lines but I'll look into that next. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure this helps much - try {{wikidata|references|Q41568673|P571}} on enwp... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
That's an issue with Wikipedia's rendering of the Wikidata citation, we cannot do much about that in Wikidata. I think the citations are great like that, thanks Arthur! − Pintoch (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/VBL Spieler-ID[edit]

Hello there! May I have this property created now? Thierry Caro (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through the backlog and trying to get the ones that have been hanging around the longest or which otherwise have a lot of support done first - it takes a while to do each one! I'm sure I'll get to it soon, unless somebody else does first... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I can deal with the declarations on the property itself and all the rest. I just need the creation per se. But OK. I guess I'll wait. We have a lot of sports properties rady if you want to take care of them. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: Ok, see VBL player ID (P4298). ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, and thank you. May I now get Wikidata:Property proposal/ ID, and possibly the few other sports properties that are ready for creation? Again, I'll take them even with absolutely no development on your behalf. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
These others that are ready are Wikidata:Property proposal/SwimSwam ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Scottish Sports Hall of Fame ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/ staff ID. Would you mind providing me with these too? I'm ready to deal with them. Thierry Caro (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to leave new properties hanging with no attributes though. I could work on this tomorrow (Tuesday October 10) - what is a good time (UTC) that you could do the fixing up if I create them? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Tomorrow is complicated. If you have time right now, I'm OK. Otherwise later in the week. Thank you whatever. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
So, OK. There are only two left and I'll be online today, Western European time, to deal with them. Thierry Caro (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: ok, see properties 4318 and 4319. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. ✓ Done Thank you. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! May I get Wikidata:Property proposal/DSMHOF ID as an empty property? I'm ready to deal with it. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: Ok - DSMHOF athlete ID (P4363) ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm actually going to need the help of your URL formatting tool for this property. The # part of IDs messes things up. The URLs Wikidata generates turn this into %23. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
it should work as is just subbing in this property number and the proper URL - I've updated the formatter URL already to do this, can you check it? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes. It's now working. Many thanks. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
May I possibly also get Wikidata:Property proposal/Georgia Sports Hall of Fame ID now? This one should work perfectly straight away. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
looks like you spotted it already - done! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! Wikidata:Property proposal/Soccerdonna ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/LFB ID are ready and I'm ready to deal with them. Would you mind having a look at them? Thierry Caro (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. May I get Wikidata:Property proposal/Women's Collegiate Tennis Hall of Fame ID too? I can deal with it. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, see P4402 - however, I'm probably done for today. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Today I can deal with Wikidata:Property proposal/NLBPA ID. Would you be OK to initiate this other property? Thierry Caro (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. This has been done by someone else. Whatever, and of course if you are still OK, I'll need you a few more times before we're done with the current batch of new properties to create. I'll let you know soon again. Thierry Caro (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. We're almost done. Next one to be created could be Wikidata:Property proposal/Ontario Sports Hall of Fame ID. May you have a look there? Thierry Caro (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Quora username[edit]

Please would you review the consensus at Wikidata:Property proposal/Quora username and act according to it, as soon as convenient? I wish to include the outcome in my WikidataCon presentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

A new ID for photographers[edit]

Hi, I saw you created an ID specific for photographer and you are interested in science. Could you please leave a comment on en:w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Photography#A_new_ID_for_wikidata, if it interestes you. Thank you in advance.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)