Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:Bybrunnen)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.
Requests for deletions can be made here.
Merging instructions can be found here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/10.






for permissions

for deletions


for deletion

for comment

and imports


a query



wikilinks on wikisource editions through wikidata[edit]

Viswaprabha (talk)
Maximilianklein (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
BrillLyle (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Jc3s5h PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books@Yann, Tpt:


Wikisource editions of texts, are edition (Q3331189) items that must be linked to the work item through edition or translation of (P629) (see Wikidata:WikiProject Books).

Unfortunately, this means that wikisource texts are not directly linked anymore to each other, thus breaking the link between the different languages.

I remember once reading here about a template that could restore these links, using the parent/work item to automatically link all editions, thus allowing to not only have access to other languages, but also other editions in same language.

Do you remember who talked about it ? It would be very important to have this, or even an automatic feature in wikisource, to automatically link texts to all other texts linked through edition or translation of (P629) to the same work item...

Thanks for your help !  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hsarrazin (talk • contribs) at 7. 10. 2017, 15:53‎ (UTC).

Is a Wikiproject a valid catalog?[edit]

Since the disccusion on RfD got closed without consensus about this part, I'll ask the question again in a more broad audience. This currently violates constraints as well, I don't think we should use this property for incrowd projects. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. The whole Black lunch table has been explained to me about 4 times now and I still don't get it. I do understand the need for list monitors for these things (also local WLM initiatives where there is no "list-by-legislation" and only "list-by-historical-society-recommendation". Not sure how to set this up properly. Jane023 (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure that you have linked to the correct discussion, @Sjoerddebruin? I don’t see how a WikiProject catalog is important there. #Q28914245 on the same page seems more related. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, sorry. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay thanks; ping @Marsupium, GerardM, ValterVB, Pasleim as participants of that discussion.
First of all, the catalog property should be used as qualifier of a catalog code (P528) only, which is not the case here. Therefore, without a publicly accessible identifier in the catalog I wouldn’t accept that. I also fear that we could be in a situation that we consider each Wikimedian notable for an item—although there are no external references available. That is certainly not desirable. On the other hand, the item in question has an external identifier (I just assume at this point that it is about the same person), so it is notable independently of this “catalog”. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I closed the discussion on RfD because the person is notable independently of the catalog statement. Note that the item is not about a Wikimedian but it is a candidate to create an article during a Black Lunch Table edit-a-thon, see en:Wikipedia:Meetup/Black Lunch Table/Lists of Articles. --Pasleim (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I would like more input on this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for late replay, personally I think that this kind of use, is out of scope of Wikidata. I don't think that items like this, this or this (but there are hundreds like these) are useful to wikidata, it's also impossible check if a person is really in Black lunch table, I asked but no answer about this. If they are really artist need some reference to confirm the fact so we can keep them here. Instead, if the only use is monitors for some Wikimedia initiative is better find a different solution that don't "pollute" this project. --ValterVB (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That horse left the barn. Also, do consider what Wikidata is there for and, all these projects have their people and they are the ones that include items on a list. All these projects have their user stories and consequently in their opinion the entries are valid. When you talk about "pollution" it is as if a bear does not shit in a lake because the water is fresh. Wikidata is there to be used and the more use we get out of it the more relevant it becomes. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but google translate don't help me in this case, can you try to write more simple? --ValterVB (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the (incorrect) use of the property helps you determine if the items should be kept or deleted.
    --- Jura 06:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a page on Wikidata that shows how other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata?[edit]

Hi all

Is there a page on Wikidata that shows how other Wikimedia projects are using Wikidata? I've been working on a page to explain more about how and why or Wikimedia project use Wikidata and I started a conversation on to ask for their opinion (although its mainly been co-opted by one or two users who don't like Wikidata to complain about it). They have started a kind of hand curated list on but I would like to have something on Wikidata that gives examples over many languages and projects.


--John Cummings (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK that’s a bit difficult, since “using Wikidata” is not a well-defined scenario. I am aware of the “Page information” page of each item (linked in the left menu), which has a field “Wikis subscribed to this entity” in the “Page properties” section. However, having a sitelink is already enough for a subscription, and I am not sure whether this subscription is always updated properly. Projects that “use” the item without having a sitelink appear there as well, but I cannot explain which kind of “use” triggers a subscription. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Category:Templates using data from Wikidata (Q11985372)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Just for the numbers there is Grafana dashboard, but it doesn't really tell how wikidata is used. --Zache (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @John Cummings: The English Wikisource is utilising wikidata for populating some of its fields in its author header: image, birth and death data, plus sister interwikis; and the broader authority control templates. Commons is using Wikidata in its Creator: namespace.In general, for people's names, the data is still insufficiently complete, eg. many are wikidata items are missing "family field" and partial "given name" either missing names, or no serial ordinal to order names. The Wikisources seem okay to migrating to data pulls, though need reassurance that the local data is present at WD prior to removing local fields. It is a journey as there are many Wikisource editions that do not have their data even set here at this time, and there is no easy means to push the data from Wikisource to Wikidata, so there we await those tools in development.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst:, perfect, thanks. --John Cummings (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @John Cummings, billinghurst: - The French Wikisource has migrated all its Authors in wikidata, even if data still need to be migrated in some properties. We are now engaging a project to migrate editions/works data, and it will be a long process. There is currently no easy way to push the data to wikidata, and most of the work has to be done manually (or at best, semi-manually with Petscan or QS), book by book, after creating each publisher, each collection, each work... I just added links on the discussion page about this. --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Hsarrazin:. --John Cummings (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Our outstanding list is only ~400 authors and that bounces up and down depending on research done. For our works, I am waiting until the more native tools exist a we have metadata already in Index: ns or in files at Commons. Well enough data for for basic data-mining.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

'Stated as' vs. 'author name string'[edit]

It seems that the above are mutually redundant. Can anyone explain why two separate properties are needed, and if not, which should we deprecate/ delete? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 06:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • In general, we suggest that people read property descriptions.
    --- Jura 06:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
author name string (P2093) is a workaround property for author (P50) in cases where there is no reliable way to identify the author.
stated as (P1932) is used as qualifier on author (P50) to indicate how the value is printed in the source --Pasleim (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
As helpful as usual, Jura. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The question is if anything Pasleim wrote can't be found on the property description page. What is missing?
--- Jura 07:26, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
author name string (P2093) is a workaround property for author (P50), when there is NO item for the author, or it is impossible to know which item would be correct (i.e. author (P50) cannot be identified just from what is written on the publication.
stated as (P1932) is used when author (P50) is known, but the name on a book seems different from the name on the item (authors with many pseudonyms, initials, etc.) this is not at all the same. stated as (P1932) cannot be used as property, only as qualifier, and it can also be used for other properties (like publishers or actors ; I even recall seeing it, recently, on a book). --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Noting that P1932 is a qualifier, whereas P2093 would be a direct, and is a much broader property than just author. Really useful for old references where a place name or business has morphed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

And there is a third item, similar : named as (P1810) - it is used in movie distributions, but the use is exactly the same as stated as (P1932). Shouldn't these 2 be merged ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC) I have used the author string in the past in addition to the author property when the spelling in the book is not covered by the author item. It didn't occur to me that this was only used for when the author doesn't exist as an item. I didn't know about "stated as" at all. It might be helpful to point these things out better in the property discussion. I suppose alternative spellings of author's names should probably go into the alias field of the author item (if it exists) rather than the publication item (assuming that item in turn links out via various property identifiers to the literary work in question). Jane023 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

stated as (P1932) is older, and has been specifically created to answer the librarian's need to be able to catalog the author, AND how he is stated on the work ([[1]). Even if the pseudo is stated as alias in the author field, how will you know which books were published under a specific pseudo, if you don't have the info on the book ? also, many works signed by title or grade (Captain X, Count Y..., which are very ambiguous..., and not pseudonyms)
author name string (P2093) was only created because of the preparation of massive imports of scientific articles, as an easy dump, to allow for keeping info at hand, and afterwards create the authors. Please read Property talk:P2093 and Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/39#P2093. This is very explicit. It should not be used instead of stated as (P1932). --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It looks like P2093 is missing a "value only" constraint. (The English description is clear about its use, but somehow we omitted a constraint).
--- Jura 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jane023: I would suggest that where you need to add "stated as" that you would consider adding that to the alias label of the target, and also consider whether the target requires an additional item. I don't see this as alternative situation, I see it more as additional data.

Plus in the situations that Hsarrazin mentions, where you find a use of P2039 and the author is now identifiable, then you update to the specific item.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense. I will also remove "author name string" when "author" is possible. Jane023 (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Recent discussion with colleagues involved in the WikiCite initiative resulted in agreement to keep "author name string" when "author" is added, so that the available metadata is not lost. Of course, such metadata can be transferred to "stated as" (hence my suggestion that the two are mutually redundant). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well they can't be mutually redundant in the case where there is no item for the author yet. Jane023 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Consider: author (P50) -> "Unknown value"; qualified with stated as (P1932). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Now that just looks like a kludge to get around using the "author name string". I don't like that and would say it is a misuse of the "no value" concept. Jane023 (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
For movie credits named as (P1810) is used as a qualifier to indicate how the name of the subject of the item was recorded. (And this is also how named as (P1810) is used for Authority Control databases). stated as (P1932) is used to indicate how the job they did was recorded. Both qualifiers may be present on the same credit.
stated as (P1932) rather than named as (P1810) should be used as a qualifier for author (P50), because it is the value of P50 that is being qualified, not its subject. Jheald (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Paired and unpaired organs[edit]

human eye (Q430024) (human ear (Q7362), human kidney (Q9377), etc.) is a paired organ? human eye (Q430024) is half (Q39373172) or dyad (Q29431432)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Human -> has part -> kidney -> quantity -> 2 ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
For the human eye I created set of human eyes (Q41890371) for you. In general it's helpful when you reference the FMA IDs when creating items like this. Feel free to create more of the items. ChristianKl (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Fractaler: A dyad is both of the organs at the same time. It's what the FMA calls "set". Do you see an issue with describing the content this way? ChristianKl (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
set of human eyes (Q41890371) (set of human eyes or pair of human eyes) is anatomical set (Q27058130)? anatomical set is a pair (group of 2)? --Fractaler (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
If you go up the subclass tree you find that it subclasses "Anatomical set". Being an anatomical set itself doesn't mean that it's a pair. See . I wouldn't have an issue with adding an additional "antomical pair" class if you think that's necessary. ChristianKl (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for this useful links, at once there is a weight of questions (material anatomical entity=material anatomical object? Anatomical set = group of anatomical object? Why Foundational Model of Anatomy (Q1406710) has not link to Etc.) About anatomical pair (paired organ). They were created, but then they were deleted without discussion and I do not know what to do now. --Fractaler (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's a nature of a set that all it's parts are of the same class. If you have two hands and a liver that's a group but no set. To me the phrase "paired organ" suggests that there's an organ that has the attribute of being "paired". That's from an ontological standpoint different then having an pair item that contains the left and right version of the organ. ChristianKl (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
What kind of set (Q36161)? "1) two hands, 2) liver" is the list set (extensional definition (Q5421961), no definition). Set "two hands as an organ" and set "liver as an organ" are subsets of the set "organs" (intensional definition (Q1026899), has definition). And set (Q36161) is mathematical term. Not in mathematics it is better (for the elimination of homonymy) to use its non-mathematical analog (for example, group (Q16887380)). --Fractaler (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
human eye (Q430024) is half (Q39373172) the human binocular organ. The human binocular organ is a visual, binary (paired) organ. The binary organ is intermediate between the unary/unpaired organ (the last) and the ternary organ (previous) (in accordance with the Valentin Dogiel (Q2406712)'s law of oligomerization of serially homologous organs (Q42101062) - oligomerization of homologous organs (Q4333796)). Binary organ can not consist only of 1 part (only 1 human eye (Q430024), only 1 upper limb (Q841423), only 1 human leg (Q6027402), only 1 kidney (Q9377), human lip (Q15173), human nostril (Q858590), etc.), it is always an anatomical structure of two parts. --Fractaler (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

VIAF ID sync[edit]

Heads-up: Test bot run to add IDs to (mostly) people items. Example. Bot edits (bot does other edits too).

  • I loaded a VIAF ID dump with ~30 million entries into a Toolforge database
  • This contains matches to ~50 other databases (DNB, BNF, SUDOC)
  • I added the Wikidata item for entries where possible, via matches to these IDs on Wikidata
  • I am now checking these Wikidata items for some of the 50 databases where there is a Property
  • I am adding these if they are missing in Wikidata, unless
    • the value does not fit the regular expression given in the property, or
    • a statement for that property already exists in that item, or
    • a statement with that property was removed from that item at some point (irrespective of value), or
    • any of the properties checked have a value mismatch for the VIAF set (e.g., WD says DNB is 123 but VIAF set says it's 234, no edit for any property on that item will occur)

I am running batches of 100 items right now for testing. It also adds the date, and "imported from:VIAF" as a reference (or rather, for source tracking). Please let me know if there are issues, before I make this larger batches, or a continuous service.

Also, I am internally logging any issues the bot encounters, and may present those through an interface at a later date, for manual fine-tuning. --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless "a statement with that property was removed from that item at some point" seems useful as some other bot re-imports the same again.
Some clusters include DNB ids for their disambiguations, but possible you already filter them out.
In the past, people got annoyed when VIAF for locations were imported (e.g. to the many Dutch streets). Maybe you want to focus on items for people only.
It's not entirely clear if ISNI adds much value. In the past, we also had to disable imports for some other property (which added 100s of identifiers to items). You probably want to skip these as well.
It's seems that I encounter people with several VIAF regularly, but maybe we should let VIAF engines sort them out before importing them automatically.
Once done, maybe items for remaining VIAF with several components, but without any conflicts could be created. If you import all film festivals, I would merge any duplicates.
--- Jura 14:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jura! I am now excluding non-human (not P31:Q5) items, as well as those with multiple VIAF values. I am not sure how to tell apart the "type n" DNBs just from the ID; will the GND ID (P227) regex filter take care of that? Or is there another way? --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As for ISNI, my data structure has (max) one ISNI for one VIAF, so I'll import that for now. I can turn it off easily if it's important, though. --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
User:KasparBot/GND_Type_N has a list with some samples. In the VIAF webinterface, they are marked with "undifferentiated". As it's not really clear to me how ISNI are maintained, personally, I'd omit them. As they come from the same source, it's unlikely they add much.
--- Jura 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I have now made my own GND blacklist, seeded from KasparBot, and the bot will check every GND that's not on that list with the GND website before adding it. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Magnus I am a big fan of continued work on improving identifier coverage. We had a lot of big bot runs in the past, but many of them slowed down after the initial push.
Magnus, by the way last month Help:QuickStatements was created. Could you look over it and verify we got it right and point us in the right direction if we missed something. --Jarekt (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jarekt! I changed P143 to P248, and add the VIAF ID to the reference (unless the property if VIAF, in which case it's redundant). Example edit. --Magnus Manske (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Little information just makes it more likely that it's incorrect. I might be mistaken, but it seems it collects labels from incorrect past matches. With all the others, people should have better ways to match.
--- Jura 18:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Jura, I don't know what you mean by this. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Jarekt wrote that ISNI only includes little information. We can't verify if the link is about the correct person. It seems to be that when ISNI gets re-clustered in VIAF, VIAF labels from other people remain in the ISNI file. If there is a good description of their algorithms, I'd be interested. In any case, it's not as transparent as VIAF. As you add other identifiers, user might be better served by these.
--- Jura 19:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I have deactivated adding ISNI for now. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
When adding identifiers derived from VIAF, may I suggest to add the VIAF ID used as part of the reference? (Not just "imported from VIAF".) And similarly, if a VIAF id is deduced from another id (say, an ISNI), add the ISNI as reference to the VIAF claim? I think it would be really nice to encourage this practice as it makes life a lot easier when trying to understand how an item was built. We have had this discussion with ArthurPSmith and Mike Peel recently. − Pintoch (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As was already suggested, I am now adding the VIAF ID into the reference, unless the property I add is VIAF itself. I have matched the VIAF IDs in my database to Wikidata via their own Wikidata mapping, via VIAF IDs on Wikidata, and then via a few other IDs (though I did not record which for each case), unless the VIAF was already matched to Wikidata. I believe the "collision avoidance" on ID values, as described above, should limit the issue considerably. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Example where the bot added a VIAF ID, in this case VIAF had already matched their entry to Wikidata, but we didn't have the "backlink"! --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Magnus Manske: maybe more identifiers have "undifferentiated" as annotation (occasionally, I come across some from LOC), some others have "sparse". Probably none of these should be imported. Hope my explanation on ISNI was convincing. BTW, my offer for film festivals still stands. ;)
    --- Jura 06:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to links to sources, VIAF and Wikidata are very much alike in that they bring together the links of many other sources. For one person there should be one identifier in either. However, it happens that the same person has multiple identifiers and this is reason for a merge. This happen in both VIAF and Wikidata. Wikidata is one of the sources in VIAF. When we find duplicates in VIAF, we can identify both. In the future these two will be merged. We do not need to keep a link to the redirect, there is no value in it. All the links at VIAF for people are relevant because all of them link to libraries in one part of the world. ISNI is indeed a product of the OCLC but it is not about authors but about people. They too should include only one link to one person but for some time double entries may exist and will eventually be merged. Adding both to Wikidata helps this process but once one becomes a redirect, it can be removed from Wikidata.

The point is that both VIAF and Wikidata represent a process. Our work strengthens what is done at OCLC. This is a two way process so lets import as much as we can and link to all the libraries in the world. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"We do not need to keep a link to the redirect, there is no value in it. " The opposite is true. If third party has the old, redirected VIAF identifier in their database, they should be able to use that when querying Wikidata, to find the matching item. That is the very reason we have withdrawn identifier value (Q21441764) avaialble as a qualifier for reason for deprecation (P2241). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
When people have a VIAF identifier and it does not match our, they can query VIAF and get an updated identifier. Our purpose is not to keep old old identifiers around. As to the fact that there is a property for this.. Not impressed, there are many properties that have little value and are hard if not impossible to maintain. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I'll set this to run continuously now, so the entire 30M set (as far as it is matched to Wikidata) will be processed, in time. Let me know if there are things to change/fix. --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I’d just leave an impression of the imported data: there are surprisingly many cases where identifiers about different persons are mixed up at VIAF, and they are now imported to Wikidata in that poor condition as well. I recommend to check all the imported values for plausibility whenever they show up on the watchlist, and to split items in case this is necessary. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
No. That is not realistic. When we identify mismatches, we can add the right items to the identifiers that are misplaced. VIAF has its processes to pick up such issues. Conversely, when VIAF has an identifier that is different from what we think, it is also for us something to consider. Anything else is part of the "Nirvana fallacy". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by “not realistic”; the messed-up VIAF entries I’ve seen in this bot run are very realistic, and maybe they can fix it by crawling Wikidata every now and then. Effectively they leverage Wikidata’s work force to maintain their database (what is okay to some extent).
I also do not understand how you “add the right items to the identifiers that are misplaced”. Typically identifiers are added to items, not the other way round. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with errors when the errors are in a work in progress, particularly not when the organisation of that work is a partner of ours. The notion that things have to perfect is a fallacy. It prevents us from achieving more. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This is what I wanted to raise awareness for. There is this bot run, and we should not expect it to be perfect. In fact, it contains a lot of mistakes which need manual fixes. Let’s be honest: most errors will likely just be duplicated to Wikidata, since most items are unwatched and 30M data sets cannot be watched by the community. “Work in progress” is an euphemistic description for the quasi-permantent nature of the errors which are replicated here. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Your conclusion is wrong. Yes, mistakes will be included in Wikidata but work will continue both in Wikidata and VIAF. So we should compare and delete existing data using the future versions of VIAF. An entry should only exist once and needs to be merged to the correct items. There should be nothing permanent in Wikidata as far as VIAF is concerned because the authority of data is with VIAF and not with us. Disambiguation is at VIAF not at Wikidata either. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced. From the cases that I saw until now it seems that they have performed some automatic mapping of Wikidata items to their data, likely based on same name + year of birth, but ignoring occupations and so on. This approach is somewhat robust and efficient, but not 100% safe and the mistakes are really difficult to solve. So to be clear: they have messed it up, and the situation has not been solved at VIAF’s side for 2.5 years now. I don’t have much confidence in their ability to spot and correct things by themselves in acceptable times, so “compare … future versions of VIAF” is not an acceptable option here. Instead I spent a lot of time to keep the Wikidata items I work on clean from bad data, and as a side effect I maintain VIAF’s records. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The notion of "100% safe" is a fallacy. It will never happen. Luckily we are engaged in a lot of work by associating a Wikidata item not only with the VIAF id but also with the national library identifiers. This gives even more scope to collaborate on the international scale that is both Wikidata and VIAF. Your reply is only about your past experiences and there is nothing in there indicating how to move forward. IMHO, continued synchronisation between VIAF (including the national library identifiers) and Wikidata will help. Yes, we need to get rid of all the chaff in the process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
If I only saw how VIAF moved forward… unfortunately I cannot see anything there.
I just spent 15 minutes to figure out what to do with another obvioulsly poor VIAF entry, but I wasn’t able to solve the problem anywhere. There are also four bad national library database entries, three of which already in the Wikidata item. Do we have a help page that indicates proper workflows when correcting misassignments? You seem to be more experienced with that task than I am, so please give advice… Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do a lot of work around VIAF, and when I notice a wrong VIAF clustering, I just use the link in bottom of their site to send them an error report, specifying which library entries should not have been merged... and giving them link to sources to correct. Generally, they do not answer, but the correction is made ^^ --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't we have mechanisms within Wikidata or Wikimedia to deal with that? I am not willing to reveal my identity (email, IP address, real name or Wikimedia nickname) to VIAF. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

operator (P137) for embassies[edit]

Until recently, the English description of operator (P137) stated: "person or organization that operates the equipment, facility, or service". Given this long-standing description, and the most recent relevant suggestion on the property talk page, and the guidance on Wikidata:WikiProject International relations that operator (P137) should be an instance of either organization (Q43229) or sovereign state (Q3624078), I think any of the following is valid:

But similar to how we prefer to be as specific as possible for other properties, like located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), I think we should prefer the last statement above. If one really wants to determine the sending country of an embassy or consulate, then it's a simple matter to get the country (P17) of the item specified by operator (P137). Does anybody have any comments, objections, or suggestions? —seav (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

  • There was extensive discussion about where to add the sending country in the past (P17 or elsewhere) and people came up with P137. Somehow this hadn't find it's way into the property description. Most items on Wikidata_talk:Wikivoyage/Lists/Embassies use that. For some statistics, see Wikidata:Wikivoyage/Lists/Embassies/count by country
    --- Jura 19:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Here's a list of links to previous discussions here in Project chat in chronological order: Feb 2016, May 2016, June 2016, July 2016, August 2016, September 2016, October 2016. Looking at these discussions, while there was a rough agreement that we use country (P17) to the country hosting the embassy, there were also suggestions to use owned by (P127) or allegiance (P945) instead of operator (P137) for the sending country. There are also suggestions that operator (P137) be used to indicate the government or government agency to be more specific instead of just the country (like it was suggested for military bases on foreign soil). So I don't think the usage of operator (P137) to refer to the sending country is a decision based on consensus but rather based on fait accompli. And these discussions were only started last year. Furthermore, not being able to indicate which ministry, agency, or department actually operates these embassies (it's certainly possible that not all embassies sent by a country is operated by just a single government organization) means we can't represent that information in Wikidata using the entirely appropriate operator (P137) property. This defect is a situation that can be improved in a simple manner: either use another property or extract the country from the item stated in the operator (P137) property. —seav (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I don't think P137 is necessarily the best choice, but it might be the optimal one: I think the country should be indicated on the item in one way or the other. If you want to use another property than P137, I don't mind. Once implemented, please ping me and I will update the queries.
        --- Jura 06:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Well, an alternative option to using operator (P137) for the agency that operates embassies is parent organization (P749). I'm not sure which between the two is semantically/ontologically better to represent this relation between a government agency and an embassy. I agree though that specifying the sending country directly on the item is warranted because that is how most people look at embassies—as an institution between two sovereign states. —seav (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with seav that operator (P137) should have for value Office of Foreign Missions (Q7079230), because it is the lowest-level agency that operates the embassy. Anyone wanting to know what country this agency belongs to has a simple way to ask for it in SPARQL. I am guilty of assigning countries as operator (P137) values, in hundreds of cases, because I am too lazy too figure out what Zimbabwean agency is responsible for running Zimbabwe's embassies, but anyone familiar with Zimbabwe is warmly encouraged to change operator (P137) to the lowest-level appropriate agency that exists on Wikidata. Cheers and thanks for caring :-) Syced (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
seav: Are you sure that Office of Foreign Missions (Q7079230) operates the US embassies and consulates? From reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that it checks/regulates/educates but it seems that it does not operate them, meaning that it does not give them goals nor funds. So maybe United States Department of State (Q789915) is the best item to specify as an operator? Syced (talk) 08:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

UEFA ranking[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/UEFA ranking

Hello. The above proposal is going to be rejected. A user have proposed another way to add the data. I am fine with it but there are 2 problems. Please read the discussion and say your opinion there. I have the data ready and I want to add it to Wikidata. But I need a secure way how to do that. According to the discussion, no new property is needed, so I need your opinion how to use the properties we already have. Xaris333 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? Xaris333 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


Country coefficient (men football)

Royal Spanish Football Federation (Q207615)

   ranking (P1352) - 1
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 89.212

Country coefficient (women football)

Royal Spanish Football Federation (Q207615)

   ranking (P1352) - 6
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 41.000

Club coefficient

Real Madrid FC (Q8682)

   ranking (P1352) - 1
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 134.00

National team coefficient

Germany national football team (Q43310)

   ranking (P1352) - 1
   score by (P447)- Union of European Football Associations (Q35572)
   point in time (P585) - 2017
   points for (P1358) - 40.236

2 problems:

1) A problem is the country ranking. These rankings are for the countries member of UEFA. The football associations. But, nowadays there are male and female ranking. The association items are the same for both cases. We need a way to show that in the items.

2) The second problem is that we need to link to someway to UEFA coefficient (Q491781) or UEFA coefficient (women) (Q2981732) for all cases.

Xaris333 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: How about adding determination method (P459) as qualifier pointing to UEFA coefficient (women) (Q2981732) etc.? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Good idea. And for men determination method (P459) as qualifier pointing to UEFA coefficient (Q491781). Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: Please check how I add it to England national football team (Q47762). A lot of issues... Xaris333 (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Xaris333: what are the problems? I think you've done it perfectly, and I think that "FIFA Ranking" should be reworked to this general scheme. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi @ArthurPSmith: I think that if constraints are inconvenient, they should be relaxed/fixed. It's much better to generalize prop use rather than bow to bad constraints. I see two that may need fixing:
    • "mandatory qualifier constraint: sport" will make each entry too verbose, because "score by" implies the sport.
    • "type constraint: class = human or group of humans" may be too restrictive: I haven't checked whether "national association football team" is an appropriate subclass. And surely other things may have rankings, eg robots in the "robot wars" competitions.
    • Is there some other offending constraint? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Gendergap[edit]

I am thinking of creating a WikiProject to consolidate some discussions about how to track and monitor items about women and their works. Is anyone interested in helping out? I am thinking listing queries that can be tailored per language or country and listing the basic statements desired for Q5 items as well as discussing female-specific occupations such as "queen consort", the "female form of label" for occupations, and also the various ways to link women to their various notable works. Suggestions for a project name are welcome too. Jane023 (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Great idea. I/we would love to collaborate. WikiProject Bridging Gender Gap might be the project name. --Titodutta (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi, there already is Wikidata:WikiProject_Las_Imprescindibles, which was inspired by spanish-speaking women in Mexico last summer. Coordination of all women projects would be nice :)

Harmonia Amanda Exilexi Ash Crow Manu1400 OdileB GrandCelinien Camelia (WikiDonne - Le Imprescindibili) Kvardek du Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Las Imprescindibles --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC) OK great. I don't like "Gender Gap" by the way, because it implies "Gender Pay Gap" in English, and this has nothing to do with that, but more about the lack of female editors and thus indirectly, a lack of content for, by and related to women. I always try to use "Gendergap" because that is the name of the Wikimedia mailing list and anchors the subject better. I understand though that people might object to something they see as a spelling mistake (which it isn't). I think I will just call it WikiProject Women for now, as a short form of "Women in Red" because this is not about red links in the sense of missing items, but more about describing the items we already have. People often talk about the "gender binary" as if both sides are equal, which they definitely aren't on Wikimedia projects. Jane023 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

See here for now: Wikidata:WikiProject Women. Jane023 (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Entirely for an initiative like this one. Seeing the Wikidata:WikiProject Women, I'm thinking that it would be amazing to get people to start contributing to Wikidata with a wikidata game-like app! ' Exilexi (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes my gut feeling is that there is a lot of item improvement that can be done in a Wikidata-game like way, but I honestly have no idea how to set it up. Just by creating these lists I am hoping it might help attract a few contributions. Jane023 (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Good initiative Jane. I've been playing around with the work lists a bit. In my experience work lists should be of a human scale so people can actually finish it and most items should be easily solvable otherwise you'll get frustrated about not being able to solve any items.
The first list I created was Wikidata:WikiProject Women/Wiki monitor/nlwiki date of birth. The Dutch Wikipedia has date of birth for most people so this seems to be quite easy (just did a couple). It's sorted from new to old so you can raise the quality of new items and slowly work on the backlog. Around a thousand items, that's actually very low given the number of items we have about people.
The second list I created was Wikidata:WikiProject Women/Wiki monitor/nlwiki occupation. Here we run into an interesting problem: What occupation (P106) do we add to nobility? I filtered out items containing noble family (P53) or noble title (P97) to remove most of the clutter. With the filtering applied it seems to be a more workable list, but it does leave us with a second problem: How to handle mother/wife/sister (etc.) of some famous person?
So we might want to fork these two issues:
  1. How to handle occupation (P106) for nobility?
  2. How to handle occupation (P106) for people who are only notable because they relate to a notable person?
Can't recall a previous discussion about these. Any pointers?
Multichill (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Super! I don't see the nobility as "clutter", but as potentially a gold mine for paintings in private collections. Just by clicking ona few of these I found they often lead to very well-populated commons categories with portrait paintings and prints. I agree that it would be ideal to track these separately though. Maybe a bunch of these can quickly be assigned "occupation=noble" so we can list them separately for a potential painting scan. I will see if I can do this. You're right about "clutter" in the sense that most of these have very low Q numbers and have been occupation-less for a very long time. Jane023 (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe we need an occupation "portrait model" for these. Jane023 (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Occupation "portrait model" suggests that a person earns their living with it. A person who is a portrait model for a handful of portrais shouldn't labeled this way. I don't think being of nobility automatically implies an occupation. There's no reason to fill occupation (P106) when we don't have information about it. ChristianKl (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #282[edit]

Wikidata weekly summary #282

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017[edit]

Facto Post – Issue 5 – 17 October 2017
Content mine logo.png


Annotation is nothing new. The glossators of medieval Europe annotated between the lines, or in the margins of legal manuscripts of texts going back to Roman times, and created a new discipline. In the form of web annotation, the idea is back, with texts being marked up inline, or with a stand-off system. Where could it lead?

1495 print version of the Digesta of Justinian, with the annotations of the glossator Accursius from the 13th century

ContentMine operates in the field of text and data mining (TDM), where annotation, simply put, can add value to mined text. It now sees annotation as a possible advance in semi-automation, the use of human judgement assisted by bot editing, which now plays a large part in Wikidata tools. While a human judgement call of yes/no, on the addition of a statement to Wikidata, is usually taken as decisive, it need not be. The human assent may be passed into an annotation system, and stored: this idea is standard on Wikisource, for example, where text is considered "validated" only when two different accounts have stated that the proof-reading is correct. A typical application would be to require more than one person to agree that what is said in the reference translates correctly into the formal Wikidata statement. Rejections are also potentially useful to record, for machine learning.

As a contribution to data integrity on Wikidata, annotation has much to offer. Some "hard cases" on importing data are much more difficult than average. There are for example biographical puzzles: whether person A in one context is really identical with person B, of the same name, in another context. In science, clinical medicine requires special attention to sourcing (w:WP:MEDRS), and is challenging in terms of connecting findings with the methodology employed. Currently decisions in areas such as these, on Wikipedia and Wikidata, are often made ad hoc. In particular there may be no audit trail for those who want to check what is decided.

Annotations are subject to a World Wide Web Consortium standard, and behind the terminology constitute a simple JSON data structure. What WikiFactMine proposes to do with them is to implement the MEDRS guideline, as a formal algorithm, on bibliographical and methodological data. The structure will integrate with those inputs the human decisions on the interpretation of scientific papers that underlie claims on Wikidata. What is added to Wikidata will therefore be supported by a transparent and rigorous system that documents decisions.

An example of the possible future scope of annotation, for medical content, is in the first link below. That sort of detailed abstract of a publication can be a target for TDM, adds great value, and could be presented in machine-readable form. You are invited to discuss the detailed proposal on Wikidata, via its talk page.


Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add w:Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

For Wikidatans, the invitation at the end of the editorial can be repeated: please come to Wikidata talk:WikiFactMine/Annotation for fact mining and help us clarify and improve our project ideas. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the "Scaling up Wikidata editing" link for? It contains mostly outdated information from 4 years ago. Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, strange mistake by me! Fixed now, for the latest blog by Magnus. Thank you. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

ID property issue because of URL structure[edit]

Hi all

There is an issue with the Gatehouse Gazetteer place ID (P4141), currently the link to the item doesn't work because the URL sequence is broken. e.g Laugharne Castle (Q911714).

To fix this I just need to change the 'formatter URL' on Gatehouse Gazetteer place ID (P4141) but it looks from the website the sites in England, Wales, and 'the islands' have different URL structures e.g

Is there any way to fix this using qualifiers or something?


--John Cummings (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Currently all values seem to be 1 to 4 digits (except the sample). Maybe a qualifier could be added and this read by the authority control gadget.
    --- Jura 09:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1:, thanks but I don't understand how this fixes the issue, all I want to do is make the click throughs work when you click on the ID number on the item, which is governed by the 'formatted URL'. It is very unlikely there will be any new data to import. --John Cummings (talk) 09:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
We can have identifiers without formatter urls. If it ceases to work, the formatter url should be set to deprecated rank or, if it never worked, deleted.
--- Jura 09:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, but is it possible to have one 'formatter URL' statement that can have more tahn one URL structure? --John Cummings (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Not at the moment, no. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not good news. Well, I suppose this is what happens when identifiers said to be stable turn out not to be. Given over 1000 instances it would not be so great to make the formatter$ and then change the entries. But if the site changes things once, it might do it again.

SPARQL based on located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) could probably figure out which of the locations are in Wales. So there is scope for a spreadsheet-style bit of automation prefixing Welshsites/, for example. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

We could use a bot to check for the different possible prefixes, which could update the ID using the prefix that doesn't return a 404 error. Alternatively, maybe split the identifier into three, each with the different prefix. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It shouldn't really be an external identifier property if the URL keeps changing.
--- Jura 13:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Note the problem was there from the time of property creation, it is not something new due to a change in their URL's. I fixed the formatter URL though using my wikidata-externalid service at wmflabs, so it works with the original id formats that were in the proposal. I'm not sure this is how the property is actually being used at the moment. There's a property constraint right now that seems to expect a numeric id. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Please see my comment above (09:22, 17 October 2017)
      --- Jura 14:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, so clearly this property has been entered with incorrect values relative to the plan expressed in the original proposal. @John Cummings: I have fixed Laugharne Castle (Q911714), but the other 1000+ entries will need to be similarly fixed to prefix the numeric id with the correct location string. Also the constraint on the property should be fixed. Note that the numeric ID is NOT sufficient to be an external identifier, because the same number is reused by this site for the different locations (there is both a Welsh and an English site with numeric value 225). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
      • Actually it looks like all (?almost?) the sites entered so far are in Wales, so prepending "Welshsites/" to all the ids would fix (most of?) them. @NavinoEvans: can you take a look at this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
        • You could try {{Autofix}}.
          --- Jura 16:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: I think you just made the problem discussed above at Wikidata:Project_chat#References_to_wmflabs.3F worse by changing the formatter URL. :-/ Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: then this thread is a good illustration why links to wmflabs should not blindly be considered detrimental.It's the self-citation situation which is detrimental, and such a situation can happen with other domain names (for instance, other databases harvesting wikidata). − Pintoch (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: I really don't think that's a legitimate complaint in any way from the enwiki folks, at least as regard these types of links. It's no more "obscuring" the original URL than URL's obscure the original - less so in a way since it generates a redirect that any machine can follow to find the actual source. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
        • FYI I've fixed (with Quickstatements) all the cases with a numeric P4141 identifier where the item was in a located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) chain leading to Wales (Q25) - this was over 900 of them. There are a handful left over that somebody could perhaps check by hand. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
        • @Pintoch, ArthurPSmith: I'm being caught in the middle here - technically, what you say makes sense, but it's still an internal link rather than one to an external source. In the case of links, at least we have archive URL (P1065).
        • Having said that, thanks for making the fix. Is there a link to the 'handful left over' that I can help work through? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: actually it's 237. I think these are (almost?) all in Wales also, but their P131 is wrong or missing; the import job seems to have been a little haphazard. Try
    select ?item ?itemLabel ?ggid where {
      ?item wdt:P4141 ?ggid .
      FILTER regex(?ggid, "^\\d+$")
      SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
     } order by xsd:integer(?ggid)
    Try it! ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
    These are all fixed now. Turns out that they were all Welsh sites. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
    @ArthurPSmith: Is there really no way to include spaces in formatter URLs apart from going through your external tool? If so, is this on phabricator somewhere? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: Spaces do work in other formatters, I'm not sure what the issue is with this particular website, but I could not get anything to work when I tried replacing the %20's with spaces originally. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Words having multiple pages in enwiki[edit]

There are a lots of non-english words which have pages in enwiki, leading to duplicates like nonviolence (Q76611) and Ahimsa (Q178498). How to resolve this issue? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata items are not about words but about concepts. The English page is about the Hindi/Buddhist version of the concept. I don't see any need for resolving anything in this case. ChristianKl (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
The English page is about the Hindi/Buddhist version of the concept As is Q178498. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Technical issue[edit]

This project chat page is loaded as expanded in mobile view and it take ages to reach to the desired topic. Can this be loaded in condensed view? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the same problem exists on other project chats. It seems like the behaviour differs from namespace. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Correct property for a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK[edit]

Quick question and sorry if obvious: What is the correct property for Site of Special Scientific Interest (Q422211)? I can find 1932 instances where heritage designation (P1435) has been used and 134 where instance of (P31) has been used. There are 19 instance where both are used. There is also a separate property of Site of Special Scientific Interest (England) ID (P2621) which is also commonly applied, often in addition to the 2 mentioned above. Any advice welcome. Many thanks JerryL2017 (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not P31, I think. P31 should be used to indicate what kind of place the site is -- eg marsh, ancient wood, open moorland, etc. Jheald (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have the anwser, but I see that a Site of Special Scientific Interest have a WDPA ID (P809) and also a IUCN protected areas category (P814). It's like tey have a double nature has a heritage site and protected area. --Fralambert (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a suggestion but maybe we need a new property, as a sub-property of instance of (P31), alongside heritage designation (P1435) called "Natural Heritage Designation". Items with this property could include Site of Special Scientific Interest (Q422211) but also Ramsar site (Q20905436) , nature reserve (Q179049) and Special Protection Area (Q2463705), lots of others too probably. JerryL2017 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea, since for most of the protected areas, like national park (Q46169) and nature reserve (Q179049) have only one instance of (P31), there legal statuses. --Fralambert (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
heritage designation (P1435) has "Heritage" as the primary use, but it's also defined as "protected area", and the constraints allow use of subclasses of natural heritage (Q386426). I think using this for SSSIs and similar is reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I had the the same problem with the historic provincial park (Q28059516) in Saskatchewan and special place (Q14916958) in Nova Scotia. The only solution I found was to put the result in instance of (P31) and heritage designation (P1435). --Fralambert (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment - geographic items from ceb Wikipedia[edit]

I can't speak to items outside of the USA, because I haven't been working on those, but just as a data point: so far, every instance that looked like multiple ceb wiki articles for the same US geographic feature that I have investigated turned out to be legitimate, separate features in the USGS GNIS database. Yes, there are three Bluff Points in Clinton County, New York, two of them facing each other across a strait. The assumption I made from conversation here that these items would prove to be duplicates of the same item from different maps was incorrect. - PKM (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There are a few real duplicates in the GNS database (from which geonames imported the items outside the US, which then was imported into ceb) for those areas I looked into, mostly however elongated items like rivers or mountain ranges, whereas more point-like items like hills the apparent duplicate are usually legitimate. As I usually add the GNS id whenever I look into a ceb-imported item, the P2326 constraint violations show these duplicates. However, geonames added their own duplicates, especially for rivers. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It takes a huge amount of effort to determine if they are distinct entities or duplicates, I gave up working on them. We should come up with a way to mark them, that they may be the same as each other, without merging them, and have it done automatically. This is maybe the 5th time this has come up, and it will keep coming up unless we address it somehow. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran across one duplicate in the GNIS database yesterday. I don't know how we could mark things as “said to be the same as” automatically, since it seems the geo coordinates would not be particularly close together or the problem wouldn’t occur. One approach might be pulling the qualifying location information (in parentheses) from the Cebuano wiki article title, doing some cleanup and translation, and putting that into the description field for as many languages as we care to work with. I think descriptions are a better tool than marking as potentially duplicates without them. - PKM (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions we got to solve the cebwiki thingy:

  • work by country
  • apply possibly invalid entry requiring further references (Q35779580)
  • stop this nonsense
  • collaborate with other websites/wikis to solve it globally
  • differentiate municipalities and their main locality
  • delete entries with only cebwiki/svwiki sitelinks
  • be aware of duplicate entries, rounded coordinates, mislocated places, elevations derived from rounded coordinates, locations that can't be found (possibly fictional) ..
  • add additional references

Maybe we should start working on some of this. I regret that I haven't looked into this earlier.
--- Jura 07:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Any suggestions for automation? It took me about 20 minutes of research to do two of them, one I merged and one I recognized as being similar but not sure enough to merge. It is maddening. The longer we wait, the more people are linking to the newer one, which isn't always correct. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


Hoi, many libraries have been given the correspondence of someone relevant at their death. What does it take to register this and what does it take to register the people he or she corresponded with (not individual letters). Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Use archives at (P485)? You may wish to qualify it if only a sub-type of archive.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
GerardM, I don't understand what's your question here ? what does it take ? Time mostly... on wikisource we have complete sets of correspondences for people like George Sand (Q3816). We are able to (and we will) have an item per letter... each one using addressee (P1817), but nothing can be automated so far... so : time ! --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The "Archives at" works for me. There is data on with whom the correspondence was, not the individual letters. These are beyond my scope. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A library is generally a serious public source and as such the people who write or receive the letters are notable according to our criteria. In the ideal case the library has their own authority control IDs for the people and/or uses VIAF. Futhermore, it's also welcome when the library uploads the data to Wiki Source. ChristianKl (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Concur with @billinghurst: - At a recent training at the Library of Congress, we encouraged academics to help populate archives at (P485) if they held papers of politicians or famous figures. For now that seems the best approach. -- Fuzheado (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Poughkeepsie vs Poughkeepsie and Princeton vs Princeton[edit]

Should we create a Wikidata-specific criterion (Q27949687) for all the locations that are within an administrative area of the same name? They are constantly getting confused by people who list places of death as the smaller entity or the adjacent entity, when it should be the other entity. We use two persons with the same date of birth and date of death (Q20978290) for a similar reason, to let people know that they are distinct, and may be confused. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand the proposal, so let me rephrase it. Currently we use two persons with the same date of birth and date of death (Q20978290) to differentiate easy to confuse people, for example Ivan Turgenev (Q42831)different from (P1889)  Sebastián Evans (Q6122889) / criterion used (P1013)two persons with the same date of birth and date of death (Q20978290). And you would like to create similar Wikidata-specific criterion (Q27949687) for easy to confuse locations, that have the same name and are within the same administrative area? If so than that sounds reasonable. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
We ran the doppelganger search in the past and merged duplicates that were synonyms of the same person and flagged the others, that were distinct people, with that tag. THat way when it was run again we would not have to look at the old ones again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
This property sounds like a good idea to me. - PKM (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
There is an alternative that would deal with many of these, that is, to give the full official name as the label. For example, "City of Poughkeepsie" and "Town of Poughkeepsie" or "Poughkeepsie, City of" and "Poughkeepsie, Town of". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The flag would be to remind people to be careful about which one is chosen. In most cases the source material only says "Poughkeepsie" or "Princeton", and the editor must do more research to find which one is correct.
I added two adjacent locations with the same name (Q42304567), any suggestions on how we can automate locating doppleganger locations and flagging them the way we did doppleganger people? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

w:Template talk:Marriage[edit]

A debate on how to handle marriage data is going on at w:Template talk:Marriage#Death. The debate is on how to handle the end date of a marriage when one partner dies and whether the end date is obvious when the subject of the article is dead. It doesn't matter what your opinion is to participate. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Half a year of avg. weekly vandalism for Israel (Q801)[edit]

See Talk:Q801 where I've summarized 24 instances of vandalism edits in the past 26 weeks, in the label and description fields of Israel (Q801). All were by IP account editors. Is there a policy of item protection, and does this qualify? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I added semi-protection without timelimit. I didn't add a timelimit because I expect Isreal to continue to be a topic that draws vandalism if the semi-protection would get lifted after a short amount of time. ChristianKl (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Pseudocraterellus undulatus[edit]

If Craterellus sinuosus (Q829662) and Pseudocraterellus undulatus (Q28492054) are "different taxa", why do they both have NBN System Key (P3240)  BMSSYS0000015454 and the same labels in several pairs of languages (en/es/fr etc: "Pseudocraterellus undulatus" & sv: "Kruskantarell")? And why do Wikipedia articles for the same taxon appear in different Wikidata items? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems like it was a mess before, but the labels were not fixed. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The UK National Biodiversity Network (Q6970988) changed it's taxonomic concept about Pseudocraterellus undulatus (Q28492054) recently and includes now Craterellus sinuosus (Q829662) as a heterotypic synonym of Pseudocraterellus undulatus (Q28492054). You can use taxon synonym (P1420) with a reference if you want to express this relationship. --Succu (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Universe (Q1)?[edit]

Hello! I've noticed Universe (Q1) (Universe!) has inconsistent naming in tl (Tagalog). "Sansinukob", which is used in the article is different from "uniberso", used in this entry. Why? Are there policiy/ies that explain this inconsistency? - Gacelperfinian (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The content of the article is the business of tlwiki. If tlwiki wants it to be linked to a different Wikidata item that would also be okay. ChristianKl (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Input for Property proposal/Generic#depth[edit]

Property proposals benefit from more input from more people. What do you think about Wikidata:Property proposal/depth ? ChristianKl (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible vandalism[edit]

Could an Arabic speaker verify whether this edit which popped up in my watchlist is correct? I am not sure if Google Translate is correct but experiment (Q101965) probably shouldn't be described as "mythical stories". Jc86035 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, علاء, Sky xe, Mr. Ibrahem: Mahir256 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I remove it, its wrong --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256, Jc86035: ✓ Done by @Mr. Ibrahem:. Also I added the correct description --Alaa :)..! 10:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Country historical continuity[edit]

I guess this has been discussed but doesn't seem to be easy to find. Maybe it wasn't. Let's see.

There are nation-states all around the world, with long history of state, government, name, flag, capital, etc. changes. It would be nice to have a relation which would connect these entities, which are usually chained together by "replaces" / "replaced by" relations, so queries would be nice and simple and wouldn't be needed to walk all the chain. Merges and splits aren't impossible to handle, either an object is member to more than one "country continuity object" or just one (hardly such thing exists on Earth).

I see there isn't such a thing. Would it be useless, and if so, why? If not, how it could be best achieved?

[answered] Additionally a SPARQL question: right now how would you pick Human country_of_citizenship (All countries which ever have been Hungary [throughout the replaced_by chain])?

Thanks, it's ?country wdt:P1366* wd:Q28 ;)

--grin 16:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Term vs physical quantity[edit]

fineness (Q1401905) is the percentage of a specific metal inside a coin. At the moment is an instance of physical quantity. The term fineness is also a numismatics term in fact is present inside the Wikipedia articles of glossary of numismatics (Q1093389). If I create an item for "numismatics term" may I add it to fineness (Q1401905) inside instance of (P31) or with terms we prefer to "duplicate" items? If we use only one item in fact, for example during querying, we don't have the assurance of meaning. I'm referring to the percentage or to the linguistic form? This is a specific example but I'm looking for a general rule because is quite common. Thanks! --AlessioMela (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

if the meaning is the same (i.e. for a given coin the "fineness" value would be the same with either definition) then it should be fine to leave it as a single item. If the meanings are different in some significant way then it's better to create a new item, and link them with different from (P1889) so nobody will merge them later. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a specialization of mass fraction (Q899138). --Succu (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cover's depiction: Qualifier?[edit]

It would be awesome linking publications with the stuff depicted in the cover. I was thinking mainly about people: periodicals such as Sports Illustrated (Q275837), Madrid Cómico (Q16746795), La Novela Teatral (Q32860631), Playboy (Q150820), but scope could be widened to books too. Wrt periodicals having items for individuals issues would be needed, though.

An alternative would be something like "Sports Illustrated February 18, 2002 issue, item-not-created-yet" -> depicts (P180) -> LeBron James (Q36159) // (qualifier applies to part (P518) -> book cover (Q1125338)).

Is this "qualifier option" OK enough or it would be better proposing a new specific property? (such as "cover's depiction"?). Strakhov (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

we almost had a "cover illustration" property but it took a wrong turn - see Wikidata:Property proposal/Illustrateur de la couverture - feel free to propose a new one specifically for the illustration! ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! Hmmm. I'll give it some thought. After all, "datatype" could be: 1) Wikimedia Commons file 2a) item with the cover itself 2b) item with the stuff the cover represents. Strakhov (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

SPARQL query parsing values of string property[edit]

Currently we use 2 systems to describe element composition of chemicals, the chemical formula and the element composition based on several statements using "has part" property. Some contributors propose to use the chemical formula to derive the element composition. The question is then: is it possible ?

For example how can we extract the items of chemicals having a chlorine atom based on the chemical formula property ? Thanks for your help ? This require to 1) extract all items of chemicals having a chemical formula (P274) statement and 2) then to parse the value of this statement to look for the "Cl" substring. But how can we write that ?Snipre (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

SELECT ?compound ?formula WHERE {
  ?compound wdt:P31 wd:Q11173 ;
            wdt:P274 ?formula.
  FILTER(CONTAINS(?formula, "Cl")).

Try it!

write wdt:P274 instead of wdt:274. Then you get some 18k results. --Pasleim (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Congressional Data Challenge[edit]

play with Library of Congress API - win prizes. Slowking4 (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

half (Q39373172)[edit]

"one of two equal parts". What is the name of the antipode? --Fractaler (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What should an antipode of "half" be? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"half" is "one of two equal parts"? --Fractaler (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Rank of surnames[edit]

I'm trying to add some data for the ranking of surnames in Norway. I added an example in Hansen (Q2712367). However, there are multiple issues. One is that the property I used (ranking (P1352)) seems to have constraints limiting it to be used for humans only, though this isn't explained in the property's label or description. The other isuse is that many of the source qualifiers I've used, which are the ones laid out in Help:Sources#Web page, give constraint errors saying they're only meant to be used on items that are subclasses of work (Q386724). So before I proceed with the other 3467 names I'd like some advice on what to do. Should the constraints be changed, or should I be using different properties? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • You could try the approach used for given names in the Netherlands, e.g. Q4925477#P793.
    --- Jura 09:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Still don't think it is the correct property for that. Not sure what property is better, though. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a very similar issue to what was discussed above under UEFA ranking. I think ranking (P1352)'s constraints need to be relaxed considerably, there's no reason it should be limited to humans or have that limited list of qualifiers. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
    • It could work as a qualifier on the same statement. The outcome would be mostly the same. The current approach for sports rankings (at least for cyclists) seems to be to do a property per ranking.
      --- Jura 04:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Import books from Open Library[edit]

Hoi, I want to add books available at the Open Library. For the first batch they will be books by authors that have both a Wikidata and an Open Library identifier. The books will be known because they have an identifier like ISBN or a Library of Congress identifier. The books will be available from the Open Library so there is an obvious benefit to the users of Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

These "books" would be... works or editions? strakhov (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a task for a bot (or an equivalent use of QuickStatements) and I would therefore appreciate a bot request. ChristianKl (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
They would be whatever is defined by the ISBN, the LoC identifier. A primary consideration is that they link directly to something you can read at Open Library. This is something we do not do for Wikisource. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

UI - entry screen for labels and descriptions[edit]

As far as I can tell, when I click "edit" for labels and descriptions on an item, I randomly get the single-language edit form or I just get editable fields in the multi-language display. Is there any way to control which interface opens up? - PKM (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There may a problem with scripts, please follow Wikidata:Contact the development team/Archive/2017/10#Unable to edit description in item main page and tell if it helps you. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
That discussion is archived. Is User:Mxn aware of the issue? I'll ping him at en.WP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Advice from Russian speakers requested[edit]

Our website account on (P553) is used for:

Both appear to be Russian-language social media networks, and so used in Russia (and perhaps neighbouring countries). Are there likely to be any more applicable values, which we have not yet included? Are there templates for these on ru.Wikipedia, etc, which we could scrape? In other words, should we have specific properties for them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Birthday template[edit]

Logo 5th Wikidata Birthday cropped.png This user is celebrating Wikidata's 5th birthday.

{{User Wikidata birthday 2017}} (shown above) is now available for use on your user pages. It can be added to Babel, thus:

{{#babel:xx|Wikidata birthday 2017|}}

Happy birthday, Wikidata! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Some languages (like mine) show number four. I can fix those with "4" but what about the rest? Are they all really about the fifth, not the fourth? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
See the template's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Two items on the same topic[edit]

Bussokusekika (Q2928770) and Bussokusekika stone (Q18234955) are both on the same topic. The and articles at Q2928770 were both misnamed, and the actual topic "Bussokusekika" only currently has an article on I fixed the title of the English article, but am having a dog of a time making the interwiki links go to the right place. When I try to edit the links, though, I am told that I can't because Q18234955 exists and that I can merge the two if they are on exactly the same topic, but they aren't. What's the normal procedure here? Hijiri88 (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that both items have links and when considers both topics important enough to have their own article, that's two topics. ChristianKl (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Yeah, but the articles need to be switched: the and articles correspond to one topic, but currently are linked to the other. The article currently links to the article 仏足石歌, but it should link to the article 仏足跡歌碑. I don't know how to fix that, so I came here. I gather that the correct path would be to remove Q18234955, swap out the entry for Q2928770 so it links to the right article, and create a new item that includes the article currently linked to Q2928770. Forgive me if I am missing something. Hijiri88 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
And FWIW, I want to create an article on the topic 仏足石歌 on, but I want the credit for "creating the new page" for en:WP:WAM purposes. To do that, I have to get the bad redirect created by my move deleted. But I don't want to do that until I've fully cleaned up after my move, and doing that requires fixing the interwiki links. Hijiri88 (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I added label+description+statements for clarity. Syced (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) constraint violation[edit]

Tyrolean Art Cadastre inventory ID (P4219) is just an example here with its constraint violations. I feel there is a much more general problem not related to Tyrolean Art Cadastre inventory ID (P4219) only.

The violations located in an administrative territorial entity different from an Austrian municipality are IMHO false positive, as the true reason behind is that the property located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) has two values, one of them is a district and one is a municipality. This is not related to Tyrolean Art Cadastre inventory ID (P4219) but only to located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) and should be only reported there. A bot could do a cleanup to remove parent administrative units.

@UV: for [3]. Maybe it would be useful to add a hint to {{Complex constraint violations report}}, where to leave - in general - related problem reports? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I tried to fix the query accordingly. Obviously, if the administrative layer is meaningless altogether, maybe it shouldn't be on most (or all) items.
    --- Jura 13:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thanks, your modified query left only one constraint violation, which was reported correctly. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

looking for data on lipstick[edit]

HI, I am searching for data sets on lipstick. Sales, brands, colors, historical data, any information that may be accessible. I am new to Wikidata so thought to post my situation. Thank you kindly. ART  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:647:8104:45c0:95e5:4bc4:85b7:8d81 (talk • contribs) at 21. 10. 2017, 13:50‎ (UTC).

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like a lot has been done in relation to lipstick (Q184191) brands and specific products. This seems to also be the case in English Wikipedia, where one would expect that if any edition might have this info, it would be English. A good place to start investigating the topic would be to look at what instances and subclasses are there, with a tool like SQID - [4]. Feel free to propose some ideas or reliable sources where Wikidata could start in this area. -- Fuzheado (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Outside of Wikidata might be a good place to look for data sets. ChristianKl (talk) 12:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, definitely post your question at the opendata URL above, that's your best bet. Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Defining account creators[edit]

I have started this RFC about account creators. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC) (for Rschen7754)

How to define granting of a royal charter?[edit]

What should the correct pattern be for defining when an organisation has been assigned a royal charter? There are several approaches, none of which seem right to me:

Using award received seems close, but is a royal charter considered an award? Pauljmackay (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

A royal charter is awarded (try a Google search for "awarded+a+royal+charter", including the quote marks), so yes it is an award. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much agree with Andy here that it is awarded, though I would have used the term "granted" however that isn't a specific property, and P166 is the closest. I would qualify with a start/end date, as applicable. If there is other pertinent detail in the charter, that can be qualifiers too (conferred by, has cause, ...).  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Charter is both a noun and a verb; the noun is the document, the verb is the act of granting the authority that is memorialize in the document. So the question becomes, when assigning items as values for properties, should we pay strict attention to whether the item is defined as a noun or verb in its label or description? If so, we would have to create many additional items, so that whenever applicable, the item has both a noun and verb for.
Alternatively, we could be flexible, and expect the reader to interpret an item as either a noun or verb as applicable. If we accept the verb form of "royal charter" as "while acting as a sovereign, to grant authority which is memorialized in a document" then it certainly could be the inception of a unit of government or an organization. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikisyntax in media legend[edit]

Hi to everybody.

Is there any policy or recommendation about using wikisyntax in media legend (P2096)? If we use it, we can add italics o wikilinks to media legends in Wikipedia but if we use only plain text, its content will be easier to share in other places. So, I'm not sure about what to do.

Thanks in advance. Paucabot (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Wikilinks in media legends are problematic in my opinion. They only work in a specific Wikimedia project, but the media legend does not express which one. Most likely the Wikipedia project corresponding to the media legend language of course, but this does not need to be the case. Another problem is that in case of page moves we would need to update the media legend manually, which would easily be forgotten. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikisyntax is evil. I say this always. The problem is many users got used to it because of wrong implementations of Lua modules and infoboxes that do not escape arbitrary strings properly. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Also note that Wikidata is for everyone, not just Wikipedia and other sister projects. The media legend should be useable for everyone. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • They are kind of essential when using this property for caption for images in infoboxes. Note that not all wikitext formatting works, though - wikilinks do, but | doesn't, nor does italics. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the text should be written in order to be comprehensible without wikilinks. For P18 on items about a person, this could be limited to "2nd person from left" with a date read from the qualifier "point in time".
    --- Jura 08:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

inverse family relationship (Q42248293): parent couple (Q38791127)/son and daughter (Q42260742) or parent couple (Q38791127)/child (Q38693655)?[edit]

parent couple (Q38791127) is social couple (Q39155785). son and daughter (Q42260742) also is social couple (Q39155785). child (Q38693655) is not pair, is one-component system (Q30103061). --Fractaler (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

  • I haven't thought of these pairs when creating inverse family relationship (Q42248293). If it can't be sorted out, maybe you could try to do more specific items (for use in "criterion used" qualifier) that describe how they relate?
    --- Jura 08:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
inverse family relationship (Q42248293): "for "opposite of"-statements on kinship type items. Sample use: if A is "father" of B, B is "child" of A". parent couple (Q38791127)/son and daughter (Q42260742) is a social couple (Q39155785)'s kinship type (=if F and M is "father and mother" of S and D, S and D is "son and daughter" of F and M), ). Previous is parent (Q7566)/child (Q38693655) (one-component system (Q30103061)'s kinship type (=if A is "father" of B, B is "child" of A"). Previous is no label (Q39627308)'s kinship type (when objects so far only have the ability to create a kinship, but at the moment do not have this) --Fractaler (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the purpose of such items. Where do you want use son and daughter (Q42260742) except for claiming that it is the inverse of parent couple (Q38791127)? --Pasleim (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, what inverse family relationship (Q42248293) for 1) parent couple (Q38791127), 2) parent (Q7566)?--Fractaler (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up stated in (P248)[edit]

Enwiki only wants to import statements that are sourced. Currently, stated in (P248) is sometimes used to refer to another Wikidata item from which information is taken. That usually violates the contraints on stated in (P248) and produces problem for Wikipedia as described on . I would advocate to run a bot that removes constraint violating stated in (P248) statements. ChristianKl (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Roman numeral system, Roman number, symbol/digit in Roman number[edit]

We have a I, V, X, L, C, D or M symbol/digit. Each of them is the letter of the alphabet (heptad (Q29441572) of I, V, X, L, C, D and M), used in combinations to represent a words - Roman numbers (I, X, combinations IX, XI, etc.). This words/combinations is part of the language mathematical system - Roman numeral system --Fractaler (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Update Wikidata:Statistics[edit]

The Wikidata:Statistics has a nice diagram showing "What is in Wikidata?" on the right. But these numbers are dated to 2015-10-25 and are therefore quite outdated. They seem to be integrated with {{Site content|wikidata}}. Can someone update and make sure that it keeps up-to-date? --Zuphilip (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a updated one. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this an appropriate home for a large collection of data on Texas public school finances and performance?[edit]

I have a large collection of data, over 2000+ rows and 5000+ columns, on Texas public schools all at the district grain, covering their financial and academic performance spanning 2000-2016. Is wikidata the right place to share that data? I am moderately familiar with the concepts of linked data and an capable python developer. Happy to hear the best way to integrate, if it's appropriate at all.


Jareyes210 (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not all, but at least some of this information is relevant, for instance the number of students each year is definitely on-topic.
Here is the page detailing properties for schools: Wikidata:WikiProject_Education#Educational_institutions.
Here is a showcased university, it does not seem to contain any financial/performance data though: University of Konstanz (Q835440). Cheers! Syced (talk) 06:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting question. I don't think much has been done in this field as the focus was mostly on colleges/universities.
    From a Wikidata perspective, it would be good to include most if not all information that doesn't change every year and that could be maintained going forward. If available, this could include details on every school in the district.
    Looking at w:List_of_school_districts_in_Texas and (e.g. as random sample) w:Aransas Pass Independent School District, the data on the articles could be stored either at Wikidata or in Commons (in tabular form). The information that is in the infobox might fit directly at Wikidata, maybe even basic financials as for companies (infobox at w:Alphabet Inc., properties at Wikidata:WikiProject_Companies/Properties).
    Tabular data on Commons is preferable for details with many datapoints. For a list of items, see this query.
    --- Jura 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorting Identifiers[edit]

As identifiers continue to be added, we need to sort them so the most used ones appear at the top of the list on any given page. Any ideas on how to implement? I imagine ones like VIAF and LCCN will be the most populated ones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to have them on alphabet, actually. Maybe with an option to prefer some?Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
LCCN is not in our Top 100. ;) --Succu (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC) OK, Library of Congress authority ID (P244) is... --Succu (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This can easily be done by adding them to or changing MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why sections on this page are opened by default on mobile?[edit]

Who can tell me why? -- 02:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Project chat#Technical issue. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Is there a smarter way to do this?[edit]

Namely, the usage of closed on (P3026) in Esperanto-Domo (Q42306289). ~nmaia d 03:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of one at least. I guess the system to describe opening times will anyway need an overhaul somehow. I think it could be worth to evaluate the use of the syntax of OpenStreetMap's osmwiki:Key:opening_hours as perhaps the most powerful currently available. Unfortunately, that doesn't help you at the moment of course. Best regards, --Marsupium (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Marsupium: I agree, OSM's syntax for that is pretty good. Do you know of the latest developments on opening hours? I remember seeing a property proposal that was shot down, and nothing else since. ~nmaia d 23:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

How to add "reference URL" property?[edit]

That is breaking my mind for 10 mins by now. Say Q2474366, for the burget field I choose add reference, property reference URL, paste value
It is all fine but now what do I have to do, jump 3 times, pray, something else? Because there is no Save option anywhere of any kind, only remove and global cancel. --NeoLexx (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hopefully it is not the same answer from 2013 (that the interface is presented but is not working yet). --NeoLexx (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Um... It works all suddently. Sorry, it must be something wrong on my side. --NeoLexx (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)