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

# Wikidata:Project chat

(Redirected from Wikidata:PC)
 Wikidata project chat Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc. Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered. Please use `{{Q}}` or `{{P}}`, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively. Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here. IRC channel: #wikidata connect Start a new discussion
 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 2017/11.

## wikilinks on wikisource editions through wikidata

Notified participants of WikiProject Books@Yann, Tpt:

Hi,

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).

User:Hsarrazin: That sounds like s:sv:Modul:Sandlåda/Innocent bystander 3. You can see it in action at for example s:sv:Bibeln (Karl XII), and User:Innocent bystander is probably the one who best understands how it works. Peter Alberti (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Wikidata weekly summary #284

I just fixed the father's father issues, by removing both relationships. Syced (talk) 06:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
@Syced: Removing both seems to be bad as it also removes the correct one. It should be possible to determine the correct one by looking at the data of birth. ChristianKl (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to leave the correct information in simple cases, but in most cases the situation is just too complicated for a non-expert, for instance when reference information is no readily available or when many members of a family share the exact same name+surname. Let's think the other way: Would you add two statements while knowing that one of the two is wrong (but you don't know which one), or would you just refrain from adding them? Syced (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Terribly unhelpful, especially as the query was sent to many people who could try to sort it out as well. The problem we had in the past with some of these properties is that when one typed "father" property:P40 came up first. The inverse might have been true for "child".
--- Jura 09:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Syced: I generally follow "When in doubt, do no harm", so when I don't know anything about whether a statement is true or false I neither add nor remove statements. ChristianKl () 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl:@Jura1: If a statement is probably false (50%), then I would rather not have it in Wikidata, but that's just me. As a maker of applications that use Wikidata, I hate it when the data is wrong (that happens often). I would rather have only 4 solid statement than 8 statements with a 50% probability that each is false. I highly doubt any specialist about them reads Wikidata Weekly (maybe I am just bad at finding reference information?), but anyway here are the persons whom relationship I modified, feel free to fix them and add references:
Thanks all for caring! Syced (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Video game genre

I have questions about science fiction video game (Q27670585) and fantasy video game (Q42409239). Both of these are listed as instances of video game genre (Q659563). However, video game genres are supposed to be all about different types of gameplay, not setting. Is there a better thing that these should be sub-classes or instances of? Could someone clear this up for us? Thanks. 09:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@SharkD: Category:Video games by theme (Q6849492) contains both Category:Fantasy video games (Q7801174) and Category:Science fiction video games (Q6339113) as sub-subcategories, so I'd welcome an item for "video game theme".

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games Mahir256 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good interim solution. However, what should "video game theme" be a child/instance of? I don't know how to set this up. 06:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with genre, in general, is that it doesn't have any specific meaning or standard rules. It's really just another word for category, and is quite ambiguous. My view is that we have too many genre items for creative works, but not enough more specific properties. I don't know why we have many different science fiction (Q24925) items, such as science fiction film (Q471839), science fiction comics (Q1782964), et al. I have never seen this done this way elsewhere, and it makes no sense to me. science fiction (Q24925) is science fiction (Q24925) regardless of the medium. Danrok (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I have my own ideas about genre. They will probably never get implemented here. I think there are four main types of video game genre:
• gameplay (shooter, RPG, beat 'em up, etc.)
• setting (historical, science fiction, fantasy, modern/contemporary, etc.)
• dramatic (comedy, tragedy, mystery, etc.)
• purpose (advergame, serious game, educational game, etc.)
I also think you can combine these into nearly any combination you want. (role-playing shooter, dramedy, science fantasy, etc.)
But, I will continue to monitor this discussion to see what the rest of you think. 06:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: All values of genre (P136) are required to be instances of genre (Q483394), or instances of one of its subclasses. We could have subclasses of genre (Q483394) be for gameplay/setting/dramatic/purpose categories, and each individual "genre" being an instance of one of those and used as a genre (P136) value. Perhaps there should also be a more general class for "genre of video games", as a superclass for video game genre (Q659563), video game theme (Q42907216), etc. and a subclass of genre (Q483394). --Yair rand (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be a big change affecting a lot of projects, so we would need their feedback too. 23:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## Use cases for no value

What do you think, is it appropriate to use the "no value" for statements, that could eventually be filled with custom values? E.g. for a living person, there is no value for date of death (P570), but at some time there could be one. --MB-one (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Better use "no value" only when the statement can be referenced and will stay valid in foreseeable time. -- JakobVoss (talk)
For a living person you can use floruit (P1317) 2017 if you want to note down that they are currently alive with an appropriate source. In other cases where there's no special property and you want to state that an organisation still exists I think it's oaky to use "no value" even if the organisation could get disolved in the future. ChristianKl (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
• Living people shouldn't have P570. For immortals, P570=no value seems fine.
--- Jura 22:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment Where it is factual. Forcing a "no value" would actually apply a date of death which is incorrect. Having no date of death is the only means to determine someone is living, there is no other system means to do that. We also use "no value" where we have done authority identifier checks and find no value exists; note that it is required to qualify that with retrieved (P813).

On a similar note, do not apply "unknown value" just because you don't know it. It is quite problematic when people systematically apply selected vague dates of birth/death as they flow through the system, AND it doesn't allow those empty values to be researched as they are already filled with what equates to junk data.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I am currently adding "no values" regularly for the Thai monuments. About half of the registered Thai historic site (Q16438244) have been officially announced in the Royal Thai Government Gazette (Q869928) and becoming effective by the date of publication, but the other half is also included in the database by the Fine Arts Department (Q1416884) and have a Thai cultural heritage ID (P1626) already. Thus for those I set start time (P580) to "No value". Ahoerstemeier (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1::As of now, there's no way to determine if a person is currently living, or if the date of death (P570) isn't set yet. Hence, I would propose the use of "no value" to indicate that, there is indeed no date of death, because the person is currently alive. More generally speaking, creating information by omitting information, doesn't seem to be a sensible approach to me. --MB-one (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
How would you reference such a statement? What happens when someone uses the most recent rdf dump (that is slightly outdated)?
--- Jura 12:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@MB-one: see above.
--- Jura 10:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@MB-one: I respectfully disagree. Starting to push a "no value" for an open end date doesn't seem to be a good practice. If we start that on death dates, every other qualifier for end date is problematic.

No date of death usually would mean living, or data missing. There are means to manage missing death dates where obviously dead (immortals aside). At English Wikisource, where no death date, we calculate up to 120 years max. age for living, and label accordingly. Forcing a no value, gives death date a value, and makes it harder to find missing values.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@billinghurst: How would this make it any harder to find missing values? If anything it would make it easier, by excluding living people from the list of items, potentially missing date of death (P570). And yes, this does technically apply for all end date properties. --MB-one (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
If date of death (P570) is not known use "unknown value" . If the person is immortal (like Captain Jack Harkness (Q561140)) use "no value". Otherwise don't add date of death (P570). --Succu (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Monolingual language code mn-Mong for traditional Mongolian entry in wikidata item.

About 1.5 years ago, some users have requested for the creation of monolingual language code mn-Mong on phabricator phab:T137810 so that Mongolian text in Mongolian script can be entered into wikidata. However, on phabricator, User:GerardM was saying that per policy of Language Committee, that code cannot be accepted because mn is a "macrolanguage" code. (macrolanguage (Q152559). As such, I would like to put the situation into discussion in Wikidata regarding what are we going to do with the code. My personal opinion is that the code mn-Mong would be the best fit for the values that are going to be added to wikidata despite what have been stated by Language committee, and as a result I believe the optimal solution is to establish a local consensus that would override the language committee policy.C933103 (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: How about mvf, given that this represents the variety spoken in Inner Mongolia and that variety is written in the Mongolian script? (If we wish to represent the variety spoken in Mongolia in the Mongolian script, we could use khk-Mong.) Mahir256 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The thing is, as far as I understand, if you write a text in the Mongolian script according to its orthography, it will be the same no matter if it is mvf or khk. In other word, if a Mong text is presented, you can't judge if it is mvf or khk. (That's what I was told by Mongolian speakers anyway)C933103 (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: If that is true then why do you want mn-Mong instead of mvf? ChristianKl () 22:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
They are not distinct when written in Mongolian script, but they are distinct vocally. The mvf only represent the vocal dialect. When a khk speaker write the language in Mong, they will not say they are writing it in mvf. C933103 (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The core issue is that we seem to have a policy that sees ISO-639-3 as authority for what a language happens to be. mvf is a language according to that standard. Would it work for you as a compromize to create that language? ChristianKl () 00:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The way I see it is that, spoken language =/= written language, therefore while putting mvf, khk separately could arguably make sense in term of the spoken language, and also the classification would make sense when writing with latin or cyrillic alphabets that are more strictly phonetical representation of those variants, however it does not make sense when writing with Mongolian script.
Then about "compromise". I cannot speak for Mongolian community but my understanding is that it would defeat the purpose that Mongolian written in Mongolian text is supposed to be beyond the boundary of individual Mongolian subgroup. To khk speakers, the coding could also seems like giving away Mong to China, and alienating the community from the script.C933103 (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Somehow the process for new monolingual strings isn't really working out. Even fairly trivial creations can take langcom months to assess and can take a year to implement (samples: fr-ca in phab:T151186, nrf-je in phab:T165648). It seems it's not entirely clear what langcom is meant to do in relation to Wikidata. Requests for new Wikipedia's get confused with requests for monolingual strings per Help:Monolingual_text_languages#Requirements_for_a_new_language_code. For mn-Mong phab:T137810 includes a Wikidata assessment by Nikki. It seems to me that should be sufficient.
--- Jura 07:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No. There is no room for abusing standards. The language policies are fixed because the Wikipedia experience showed the fallacy of having "consensus" determined codes. We still suffer the consequences because there is no process to undo the damage. The process of adding codes to Wikidata must conform to the ISO-639 standard. The problem with the flood of codes for Wikidata is that there is too much of them and no thought on what to use it for. At this moment it is used for text only fields. So when there it is about languages that is only spoken, by definition the use of such codes are problematic. I have asked at previous request for an argument for the codes, I did not get it and as far as I am concerned there are too many requests and the case for their creation is not made. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the standard Wikidata is using. Aren't you again confusing Wikipedia with Wikidata.
--- Jura 07:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That is immaterial. There is only one language policy and it is valid for any and all Wikimedia projects. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
--- Jura 08:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Can you?
--- Jura 08:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• @GerardM: What's the problem with IETF language tags? ChristianKl () 16:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• What damage are you speaking about? The existing of simple wikipedia? I don't see any problem with it existing. If you refer to other problems, is there a page that lists them? ChristianKl () 16:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

### Monolingual language code creation process

• Wikidata seems to use language codes not only to talk about languages but also to talk about dialects. GerardM seems to have decided in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186#2916575 against having en-US as dialect within Wikidata. The next time the request for an opinion on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T154589 was ignored. At https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T151186 there's another request. I can understand that the jurisdiction for deciding which new Wiki's are supposed to be oppened is at the language committee but I don't really see why the jurisdiction for Wikidata languages/dialects shouldn't made inside our community but outsourced to the committee. ChristianKl () 18:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• It could be good to have a group of users interested in these questions reviewing them, but they'd need to collaborate with Wikidata. Currently I don't really see this happening. At some point, we got the explanation that the committee lost interest in reviewing these requests.
• No explication is given why phab:T151186 took 4 months for an opinion and no explicit approval was given. The result was that this simple request took almost a year.
• At phab:T165648, the request seems to be taken hostage by the language committee because there is some disagreement about a related language code currently used by a project grouping several languages. The language codes requests are considered correct by everyone involved and no other code is used at WMF for the same. There is no technical problem to use the code at Wikidata for monolingual strings.
• Given that the Wikidata approach works fairly well for creating databases and Wikidata administrators are fairly proficient in building things that way, maybe Wikidata administrators would be a better group to review these requests. We do need a group that is interested in reviewing these requests and collaborates with Wikidata.
--- Jura 08:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Processwise we could do it similar to property creation. We can have one WikiProject that gets pinged, so people who are interested in preventing abuse of codes can voice their opinion. If the process would be successful, instead of creating a new property the admin/property creator could write a phabricator ticket that links to the language tag creation proposal.
@LydiaPintscher, GerardM: Would any of you have a problem with switching our process in this way? ChristianKl () 12:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
From my side what I need is some confirmation that the language code we are adding isn't bogus/wrong/... because I don't have the necessary knowledge and time to judge this. So if this process leads to that I am fine with it. --LydiaPintscher (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The process for properties is broken; it happens all too regular that properties are deleted. At a time adding languages was a community process and that was a failure. It is still not possible to undo the damage. We are not bringing a community process back for Wikidata. When monolingual codes were introduced, I was in favour of this. As it was discussed at the time. When the content for a code is wrong all its content is to be deleted. The idea is that this is to help not hinder.
The problem with many of the later Wikidata codes is that no reason is given for their creation. The fact that these codes are introduced regardless sets them up for failure and deletion. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Given the feedback of Lydia, what do the other Wikidata users think that were involved in these requests that took months to complete or are still open (fr-ca, nrf-je mn-Mong). This would only concern codes for monolingual strings at Wikidata (Help:Monolingual text languages), not creations of new Wikipedia sites. @Laddo, VIGNERON, Fralambert, Mbch331, Verdy_p, Nikki:
--- Jura 06:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Jura1: Given the recent Community Wishlist discussion, why not add en-US to the mix? ChristianKl () 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not aware of an actual code request for en-us (phab ticket). Personally, I just mentioned these three codes in my previous comments.
--- Jura 13:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• @GerardM: Given that you were till now either unwilling or unable to provide any examples of harm, I'm not sure why I should put much stock into your argument. It also makes me question to what extend the language committee is well equipped for their task when they don't maintain easily sharable lists of problems that they see. ChristianKl () 13:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• I can't judge if language codes are valid or not. I'm only involved because I know how to add them to the code. If languages are accepted it's easy for me to make a patch. Mbch331 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the best way would be to still consult the LangCom but only for advices, for having a recommendation point of view and to consider that silence implies consent if their is no answer after some time (eg. 1 month). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that there is no silence. There can be no doubt that I have said enough times that a macro language does not identify a language and consequently cannot be used. The harm involved is that something is implied that is not correct, something that does not conform with the standard used of the what the standard stands for. Just ignoring this does not change one whit why it is wrong on first principles. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

### mn-Mong (cont)

• There is no inherent problem with en-US, the same is true for Australian English. There is one big problem. It is that liberties are taken with the meaning of the codes. A great example is when macro codes are used in combination with other codes like with Mongolian. What I find is that many codes are asked to be recognised without any argument why they are requested. There is no point in asking for a code for a language that is not written for instance. The point of the language policy is that the codes are used in the way they are meant to be used. We are still suffering the consequences from the abuse we have seen in the past. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think it would great if there's documentation of "suffering the consequences from the abuse we have seen in the past". Documenting the problems might help with increasing their visiblity, which inturn helps with solving them.
When it comes to this Mongolian example it seems to me that if we would use ISO-639 codes, then we have to give two language with distinct verbal expression but a shared written language different codes. Given that our project only uses the written language I don't see why this would be a problem. ChristianKl () 12:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It is a problem that "we" give a code that is external to us a meaning it does not have. Your notion of language is at odds with the standards. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean by giving it the meaning that it does not have? The combination have already been registered on IANA Language subtag registry, and French Wikipedia have already been using Module:mn-Mong for a number of things already. C933103 (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Why does it matter what the French Wikipedia does. It is wrong and not acceptable. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
More relevant is that Amir Aharoni wants all the language codes to be merged. This makes these often arbitrary request even more dangerous. There are plenty of codes that are fine but codes like mn-Mong are not acceptable not only because of the inclusion of an ambiguous code but also because it is given a meaning it does not have. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Where have you seen that "mn-Mong" is wrong ? It does not indicate the country (irrelevant here) but the traditional Mongolian script (traditionally written vertically) used for the Mongolian language (modern Mongolian generally uses Cyrillic in Mongolia, but in China it uses now sinograms; the traditional script was used in what is now in Mongolia, part of Russia, and part of China: "mn-Mong" is valid in the three countries and refers to this orthograghy. "mn-MN" would likely be written now only in Cyrillic but would be only the more standard modern use in Mongolia, where "mn-Cyrl" may be used also in Russia and China for the same Cyrillic version. "mn-CN" would likely be written now only in simplified sinograms but would be only the more standard modern use in China, where "mn-Hans" would be used in the 3 countries without ambiguity.
In general we should avoid language codes using ISO3166-1 country/territory extension: languages are better encoded using ISO 15924 script codes, or variant codes for regional dialects.
So "mn-Mong" is far better than "mn-MN" (not needed: use "mn" instead and preferably use the cyrillic script only), "mn-CN" (use "mn-Hans" instead), "mn-RU" (use "mn" instead and only the cyrillic script). "mn-Cyrl" is not needed for Mongalian names in Russia or Mongolia (use "mn" directly) but "mn-Cyrl" could be useful in for names used in China. "mn-Latn" would also be useful to show romanizations (preferably from the Mongolian script if available, otherwise from the cyrillic version, otherwise from the sinographic version). There may be also useful cases for "mn-Hant" (traditional sinograms, used for historical name in the Inner Mongolian region of today's China before its invasion by Han imperial armies, but also previously when Mongols where invading today's northeastern China). But there are certainly regional variants of Mongolian which may also be written in several scripts.
Note: all these variants are not needed for the creation of a new wiki. This is purely for translations of Wikidata labels which should adequately identify languages or dialectal and orthographic differences rather than regions. Verdy p (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Another note: being a "macrolanguage" does not mean we cannot encode data. Chinese (zh) is ALSO a macrolanguage, in which standard Mandarin is only one member. But because this Mandarin language is highly predominent, it was decided to alias "zh" and "cmn" together (also because the simplified script is now predominant, "zh-Hans" is aliased in IANA registry for BCP47 by making "Hans" the default script. There's evidence that Mongolian also has a predominant language variant, the one used today and standardized in Mongolia (with the Cyrillic script).
Macrolanguages are not blockers at all: a macrolanguage is distinct from a language family in that it has a large mutual understanding with minor differences that are easy to understand :::::: (at least orally: the script however is hard to decipher for most native speakers even if this is exactly the same oral language within the macrolanguage group).
This is not the same about language families (notably "qu" for Quechua for which a more precise ISO 639-3 individual language code should be used as there's no evident mutual understanding and differences are no longer minor as they were in their old origin where they may have first emerged as dialects then as a macrolanguage, before being split like it occured between "ht" and "fr" when it emerged as a vivid creole, or between "fr" and "gcf"; as well the modern Filipino is first started as a dialect, then as a creole with good understanding i.e. a macrolanguage, then was separated definitely from the traditional Filipino dialect and today's Filipino is a strong creole separated from its 3 roots: old Filipino, Spanish and English...). Verdy p (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: So, what do you mean by "giving it the meaning that it does not have"? C933103 (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
What is written above is about interpreting, giving it a meaning and it is not how we should deal with it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
The IANA language tag registry does define criteria for what they allow as languages and follow the IETF standards. I see no reason why we need to follow the ISO standards here when the IETF seem more useful. ChristianKl () 14:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

### Why not learning how Azerbaijani (Q9292) works?

The Azerbaijani is also a macrolanguage and have both North Azerbaijani (Q3515311) and South Azerbaijani (Q3449805), so we can assign both as "az" and "azb", therefore I suggest continue using "mn" for things in the Mongolia country, and "mvf" for Inner Mongolia, why not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between Mongolia country/Inner Mongolia seems to be about regions and not about scripts. People in Mongolia country can still use the traditional Mongolian script even when Cyrilic script is the default for Mongolia country. ChristianKl () 13:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The language policy is applicable for new projects. The code for az predates it. We would not have an az.wikipedia.org if the decision was to be made today.
Your understanding of language codes proves to be problematic. The code mn is for everything Mongolian. Any other interpretation is wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

### "Any language allowed in Wikidata"

According to this WMF blogpost, seems like langcom have reached some consensusn back in 2013. It mentioned that "Languages used with multiple scripts need to be configured in this way.". What does it mean? Also, the post mentioned requirement for ISO 639-3 code but I don't see any point saying ISO 639-3 macrolanguage codes being excluded.C933103 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Coin og Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

I find a lot of artworks placed at Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya who has instance of (P31) of coin (Q41207). Does anyone know if this is correct?. Seems that they are created by a bot. Example no label (Q27519005) Pmt (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to find out it would make sense to ping the bot owner. ChristianKl () 00:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I can confirm that the museum indeed has a coin collection. —seav (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## One of seven equal parts of a whole

Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) is heptad (Q29441572) (group of seven things). Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is seventh (Q42879824) (one of seven equal parts of a whole)? Is there another way to indicate that "Great Pyramid of Giza" is one of seven equal parts of "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" and such structuring of data is not necessary? --Fractaler (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I oppose using instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) for this use-case as those properties are about identity. Your concern is about meronym/holonym relationships so part of (P361) and has part (P527) seem appropriate. If you want you can express with has parts of the class (P2670) and quantity (P1114) that there are exactly 7 wonders of the ancient world. ChristianKl () 14:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is part (Q15989253)? --Fractaler (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Not if you mean instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) with is. If you want to speak about something being a part, use part of (P361) and has part (P527) for it. ChristianKl () 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. "Great Pyramid of Giza" is a part of "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" or is not? --Fractaler (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The word "is" in the English language is very overloaded with many different meanings. You can't conclude from the fact that the English word "is" is being used that instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279) are appropriate. We don't add instance of (P31) "part" to everything that uses "part of". That property already communicates all the necessary information. ChristianKl () 15:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• Part of what editing a Wiki together is about is to come to consensus and edit based on common understanding. It seems you interacted with the Russian Wikipedia community in a way that they banned you because you didn't integrate yourself into the local consensus. I would like to have you continue to be in our community and that would be more likely to happen if you would invest more energy into trying understand other people views and use that understanding to guide your editing. In addition to understanding fellow community members, reading about how other communities model a problem domain is also about understaind other people views. ChristianKl () 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
• As I understood your answer to the question*necessary information for whom/for what?, necessary information for community members, right? Maybe better about my ban in the relevant topic? --Fractaler (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment Maybe a more general response: in one way or the other, it should be possible to store this information in Wikidata. Maybe if you present ways to display/extract it, it's more likely to gain some support. I find some of your things interesting, but they do need some thought to comprehend what is generally not needed for most subcategories ;) As I only looked at statements on random item, I can't really say if they are consistently applied and extractable across a series of items.
--- Jura 18:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. How by WD add info "A is B" to WD? --Fractaler (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
There no general way. The word "is" can imply many different properties depending on context.
The wording "A is part of B" implies "part of". "A is green" would imply using "has quality". "A is FMA1000" would imply using the external identifier for Foundational Model of Anatomy. ChristianKl () 20:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
If 1) "A is part of B" implies "part of" (and only) then this violation of the rights of the item, non-compliance with neutrality.The right to exist also has another point of view: in "A is part of B" it is meant that "A is С" (where С is a part of a divisible object B). Then, if 2) "A is green" would imply using "has quality" (and only), this is also violation of the rights of the item, non-compliance with neutrality. Second point of view: "A is a carrier of green color".
Because the ideology of properties does not allow deduction and induction, it does not provide an opportunity to trace the transitivity (as I informed in one topic before), I think sooner or later such an instrument in Wikidata will die (become atavism, rudiment).
In Foundational Model of Anatomy everything is mixed in a heap (for example, objects of a group and a group of objects have one superset). But the benefit of it is: it gives the right to the existence of certain scientific terms --Fractaler (talk) 07:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
• Items for scientific terms have a right to exist when they can be reliably sourced under (2) of our notability guidelines. You don't need to abuse the instance_of or subclass_of to justify their existence. When it comes to mathematical terms, MathWorld identifier (P2812) is enough to justify the existence of an item. ChristianKl () 12:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a charter of rights for items. Neutrality in the sense of our project defines the term doesn't mean that you can express your own personal opinion. We are a secondary database. It means that you have to provide sources. If you want to use instance_of or subclass_of in a nonstandard way it's not enough that you want to translate "A is green" to "A is subclasses of green object" you would actually need to bring a source where someone who models the domain says "A is subclass of green object". ChristianKl () 11:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
How a deleted item can has some right to protection (to to exist)?
"A is part of B" implies "part of". "A is green" would imply using "has quality" - this is just one point of view, one of the ways to model the world. Do you need references to the fact that if "A is part of B", then "A is part"? Or if "A is green", then "A is a carrier of green color". I understood correctly? And if I point out these sources, then the items and edits that I have created that satisfy these sources will be returned, and the administrator, the behavior of which, I think, does not correspond to the behavior of the administrator, will be responsible for lack of a team member feedback? --Fractaler (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
A reference that says "A is part" doesn't say anything about A being an instance or a subclass of part. You would actually need one that does. ChristianKl () 15:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
For example, Great Pyramid of Giza" (A) is a part (of B, of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World), here unclear what is A (being an instance or a subclass of part)? --Fractaler (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That sentence doesn't say anything about something being a instance or a subclass. Just because the word "is" appears doesn't mean that there's an implication that something is either. ChristianKl () 21:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) does not allow us to determine what Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is (a instance or a subclass)? --Fractaler (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
No, in this case Great Pyramid of Giza (Q37200) is a meronym of Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772). This is modeled via the "has part/part of" relationship. Your idea that "is" mean either instance or subclass is wrong. You could read literature about applied ontology if you want to understand this better. Apart from that Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) does not hav to contain any information about the identity of another item but only about how it relates to other items.
Wikidata is about structured data. Structured data means modeling relationship between different item with well defined relationshis and not with common language. As a result there no 1-on-1 correspondence between a word like "is" and a property. You always have to look at the relationship you want to model and see whether we have a property that was created for the relationship. If we have an existing one you can use it. Otherwise you can write a property proposal. On the other hand using a property in a way that it wasn't designed to be used because the you like the way it sounds in natural language is wrong. ChristianKl () 12:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
relationship (Q930933)? So far, only subset (Q177646)<->set (Q36161)<->superset (Q15882515) provides transitivity. What I am now talking about arose not just after reading the literature on ontology, but after its practical use and obtaining negative results on transitivity (which I already talked about). The lack of transitivity in your method is a defect that it can not eliminate, which will lead to its extinction. Nothing, better than set theory (Q12482) has not yet come up.
structured data (Q26813700) - description: empty.
Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) is heptad (Q29441572) (group of seven things) or isn't? --Fractaler (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Set theory doesn't tell you anything about the property of items or relationships such as meronymity. "part of" does happen to be transitive. Set theory has nothing directly to say about concepts of identity such as 'instance' and 'subclass'. I see no problem with classifying Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) as heptad (Q29441572). ChristianKl () 14:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Set theory defines a rule. The properties of the object are determined, for example, in an empirical way.
Ok, if a set Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) is the a subset of the set heptad (Q29441572) ("group of seven things"), then Seven Wonders of the Ancient World (Q489772) also consists of a seven things? --Fractaler (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The phrase "of a seven things" is not in line with the grammar of English, so let's pretend you mean "of seven things". {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3} according to the classic meaning of the term in set theory, so the fact that the {1, 2, 3} contains three elements doesn't mean that {1, 2} also contains 3 elements. ChristianKl () 17:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
a: yes, of course, thanks (in general, I belong to set (Q36161) "object that knows English", but, unfortunately, so far in its subset (Q177646) "object that knows English very badly").
The main reason for disputes is the lack of synchronization of terms. Set theory begins with the definition (extensional definition (Q5421961), intensional definition (Q1026899)) of a set. Will not it make it difficult for you to define {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2}? --Fractaler (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This isn't just about standard English. Even the average English speaker likely doesn't understand the difference between a subclass and a subset. This is about concepts of ontology. If you don't understand the difference between terms like subclass and subset, why argue about them instead of accepting the current practice of how relevant properties are used in Wikidata? ChristianKl () 13:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I in such cases do not argue, I just ask the interlocutor to show a difference between terms on an example of items of a Wikidata. Ie, where there will be a subset, but there will not be a subclass. And vice versa. For some reason, no one has dared to show the difference. Can you succeed? By the way, I remind you that at one time to believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth was a common thing. --Fractaler (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I already gave you above an example. {1, 2} is a subset of {1, 2, 3} but no subclass. In Wikidata we could say '{1, 2, 3} "has part" 1', '{1, 2, 3} "has part" 2' and '{1, 2, 3} "has part" 3' to describe the contents of it.
If you think you have discovered a new theory about ontology go and try to publish an academic paper about it. If you categorily disagree with the ontology community, that would be the way to go about it. The problem is that you lack the relevant knowledge and it's not my role to write a book to teach you. You could go and do actual research by reading a few books about applied ontology and then come back. ChristianKl () 15:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why you don't want to define {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2}? {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2} are items of Wikidata? And why is there no pluralism of opinions, there is no neutrality, only one faith is imposed, and all the others are deleted without discussion? Is it normal? Fractaler (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
To the extend that Wikidata is neutral, that doesn't mean that Wikidata is in favor of original research. If you have a revolutionary theory that's like the earth resolving around the sun, Wikidata isn't the place to publish it but there are other venues.
If you have too much pluralism and different people use a property or item to mean to many different things than the data becomes useless for structured data, because the person who uses the data has no idea what the person who entered the data wanted to express. Coming to consensus is essential to doing structured data well. ChristianKl () 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why do not you just 1) give a definition (for {1, 2, 3} and {1, 2}), 2) show difference between terms subsets/subclass on an example of items of a Wikidata? Are you afraid to lose? --Fractaler (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I doubt meronymy (Q837495) applies here, ChristianKl. --Succu (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Why? As Wikipedia writes in it's article on meronymy (Q837495): 'A meronym refers to a part of a whole. A word denoting a subset of what another word denotes is a hyponym. In knowledge representation languages, meronymy is often expressed as "part-of"'. ChristianKl () 23:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you define those terms that you use, please: 1) "part"; 2) "whole"; 3) "part of a whole"? --Fractaler (talk) 07:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I use them as they are used in the literature. If you want something to read "Applied Ontology: An Introduction" by Katherine Munn and Barry Smith is good. ChristianKl () 12:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I believe you and have no doubt that you have 100_500 references to literature. Just to make a substantive conversation, scientists first agree, they give a definition of the terms that are used. I'm just asking for a definition of the terms that you use. Can you do it and not leave the answer? --Fractaler (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Scientists frequently point to the literature for the terms they use and add a lot of citations to their work so that people who want to understand things better can see where concepts come from. I had a long discussion with you and invested plenty of effort in explaining myself. A lot more than the other admin that deleted your items and then spoke about banning you in case you create more of them. I don't think it's my role to explain how applied ontology works to you. If you want to convince me who actually talks to you instead of just deleting your items, then you would first need to familiarize yourself with the topic. ChristianKl () 18:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
How scientists differ from representatives of religion or pseudoscience: when the representatives of religion or pseudoscience run out of arguments, they begin to send to read literature, refer to authorities, society, etc. But you certainly are not one of those? Fractaler (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
If you discuss the nature of energy with a physicist and have no clue of modern physics they will tell you to read a textbook. I'm doing the same thing. It not worth the time of physicist to explain physics to every person who thinks they invented a new theory of everything. Keep in mind as well that Wikidata is not about doing original research and showing with arguments that your original research is right. ChristianKl () 21:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have already written that questions on the terms you use have arisen not from amateurism, as you are trying to present here, but after studying the special literature and applying the theory in practice. The scientist, if he does not know the answer, says so: "I do not know the answer", but do not lead the conversation aside. When I discuss the problem with scientist, we first try to synchronize (use the common terminology space) our terminology (otherwise there will simply be a loss of time, how it happens now). Such a procedure does not work with representatives of religion or pseudoscience (they do not even want to think about the alternative, and find all sorts of excuses for this). Moreover, in the case of representatives of religion ends as always - they do not even allow thought about alternatives (otherwise it will no longer be a religion). And what aggressive representatives of religion do with other points of view? Yes, for today there are a lot of examples of consequences. On a personal example with ru-Wikipedia version 2012.01 I will say that there was completely no tolerance, neutrality, and the alternative point of view was being killed was baned. --Fractaler (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Modelling Performing Arts Productions

Dear all,

In the context of the WikiProject Performing Arts, we are presently working on a pilot ingest of data about performing arts productions. We have now largely mapped the data from a first dataset and identified areas where the ontology on Wikidata needs to be complemented in our view. We have gathered the mapping information and our reflections on the data mapping page. Please have a look and comment here or on the talk page of the data mapping page. I will now start creating new classes and propose new properties, starting with the less problematic ones. Topics covered are:

• Adopting a more nuanced approach towards modelling FRBR Group 1 classes (literary, musical, choreographic works)
• Modelling of Performance Works
• How to ingest data about character roles
• Modelling theater seasons and how to point to them (pointer to time intervals)

--Beat Estermann (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, this is really a good work and I hope this can be used later as example for data import: we have a clear analysis of 2 different classifications, and a preliminary discussion before import. For the discussion itself I propose to use the talk page of the proposition page in order to keep everything at the same place. Snipre (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinging the two projects again; apparently, the ping template won't work if the participants pages contain bullet points.--Beat Estermann (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## How to add a database to Wikidata?

I want to plot the geographical area in New Spain / Mexico since ~1776 to serve as a companion and data quality check on the Wikipedia articles on the "Territorial evolution of Mexico" and the "Territorial evolution of North America since 1763" -- and to compare with a similar plot for "Territorial evolution of the United States".

I have numbers that suggest I may be missing roughly 8 percent of the land area; see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico.

Suggestions on how to get started?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I'm not sure I understand what exactly you want to import.
I want to be able to create a table of events and land area involved that changed the size of New Spain and Mexico, like I posted in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico (without the columns for the US). I'm currently interested in what was New Spain prior to 1821 and Mexico since.
To work backwards from the current status, I'd like to start with an entry for Mexico (= P150?) being 1,972,550 km2 (per the Wikipedia article on Mexico) with end time (P582) = “current”. Then we could change “|area_km2 = 1,972,550” and “|area_sq_mi = 761,606” in the Wikipedia article on Mexico to point to this Wikidata entry. The article also includes “|percent_water = 2.5”. The article on the United States includes “|area_sq_mi=3,796,742 |percent_water=6.97 |area_label2=Total land area |area_data2={{convert|3,531,905|sqmi|km2|abbr=on}}”.
What should be done to distinguish between area in land, water, and total and percent water? Do we use area (P2046) for all of these or create new data elements? And which should be primary and which computed? Or is it easy to create four data elements with two relationships, so a user can specify any two, and the other two are computed automatically?
Then I'd like to add entries reflecting changes in external boundaries going backwards. If I read correctly the Wikipedia article on w:Territorial evolution of Mexico, the most recent change in the external size of Mexico was its transfer of 49.2 acres to the US by the “Mexico–United States International Boundary and Water Commission” in 1976 due to changes in the Rio Grand / Rio Bravo that separates the two countries. I did not include these Boundary and Water Commission changes in the table I posted to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Mexico, but I did include Mexico's loss to France on January 28, 1931 of Clipperton Island with 6 km^2 = 2.3 mi^2.
My primary interest at the moment is producing a plot of the size of Mexico / New Spain back to 1783 or so. I've already done that and found a discrepancy of just over 7 percent. When I posted this question, I thought it would be a good idea to put what I had in Wikidata and invite others to fix any deficiencies there. However, I'm beginning to suspect that doing anything with Wikidata at this point may involve more work than I can afford right now.
However, if this can be set up correctly, others could later add shape files that could ultimately make it relatively easy for people to create maps showing the evolution of virtually any geographic entity, city or state, over time AND plot the size in km^2 or acres, hectare, etc.
Comments? Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@DavidMCEddy:
• Re distinguishing land/water area: The current way of doing that is for the area (P2046) statement to have the qualifier applies to part (P518) land (Q11081619) or applies to part (P518) water (Q283). (That's literally the item for water the chemical, which is clearly a bad way to do things, but with ~4500 uses, it looks like it's become a standard. Something we'll probably have to fix at some point...)
• For the current area, the way to indicate that something is current is to not have a end time (P582) qualifier on that statement. Mexico (Q96) already has a statement for the current area.
• For marking the events that resulted in the change of area, I think (?) you can use end cause (P1534) as a qualifier to point to the event.
--Yair rand (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much.
Sadly, the time I had to put this into Wikidata has expired, and I may not find time in the near future to do this. However, I will create my own private copy of your comments, so I can refer to them the next time I see something for which Wikidata might be useful. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What is the recommended procedure for a conflict between a Wikidata item and what seems to be the same quantity in a Wikipedia article?

For example, the area (P2046) of Mexico (Q96) is "1,972,550±1 square kilometre", but apparently the same item "Superficie" = 1 964 375 2​ km² in w:es:México. In w:Mexico, it matches Wikidata. (I will post a question on the talk page for w:es:México, as that is probably closest to the source of the discrepancy.)

Also, I see items "|area_km2 = 1,972,550" and "|area_sq_mi = 761,606" in w:Mexico. I assume these could be changed to refer to area (P2046) of Mexico (Q96), but I have so far not found the documentation that would tell me how to do that.

I found Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects. From this I concluded that {{#statements:Mexico|from=area}} might insert 1,972,550. I tried this in w:Mexico. It sort of worked, but had a curious side effect:
• "|area_km2 = 1,972,550" displayed "1,972,550 km2 (761,610 sq mi)".
• "|area_km2 = " displayed "761,606 sq mi (1,972,550 km2)": The metric units were demoted to a parenthetical display, while the English units were promoted to the main display.
Since most of the world's population uses the metric system, I decided NOT to implement this change and instead report the experience here.
Comments? Wikidata is quite valuable. It would be more valuable if it didn't demote the metric system like this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## P1532

country for sport (P1532): country a person or a team represents when playing a sport

but

Andalusia (Q5783) is not a country. Should we change the label?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xaris333 (talk • contribs) at 13. 11. 2017, 12:36‎ (UTC).

country for sport (P1532) mean "countries/region" in my language. C933103 (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: But the English description is "country for sport". Should we change it? Xaris333 (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## Random URL parts

Hello. We have a few external IDs which have a formatter URL (P1630) with a small part that can be changed randomly without breaking the link. For example:

External ID formatter URL (P1630)
NFL.com ID (P3539) `http://www.nfl.com/player/n/\$1/profile`
AustralianFootball.com ID (P3546) `http://australianfootball.com/players/player/a/\$1`
FCI rider ID (P4278) `http://www.federciclismo.it/it/person/p/\$1/`

As we can see, some of them use a single letter that is whether randomly picked or chosen to match the first one in the name of the database. But maybe should we try to make these things obvious and use the same `wd` or `wikidata` everywhere. This is really a detail but that would be nice, wouldn't it? Thierry Caro (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

When I've seen that I've encouraged the use of '_' as the random string in the formatter URL to indicate it's arbitrary (if that works). But I'd be fine with 'wd' too. 'wikidata' seems long. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem with using _ as random part is that's a valid character that can appear in urls. ChristianKl () 23:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith, ChristianKl: I guess I'll do this with `wd` and add as Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) on formatter URL (P1630) the following note: `You may use 'wd' whenever part of the URL can be randomly modified without breaking the link.`. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## described by source (P1343) and use of stated in (P248) as qualifier rather than reference

There has been a broad use of stated in (P248) to qualify a listed article (biographical, newspaper, ...) of a described source, (see example Augustus Hare (Q4821445)). This is flagging as a constraint violation (Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P248) which states that it should be used as a reference only. Is this a case of trying to modify the constraint violation, or are we missing a more appropriate property to point to the listed article? Thoughts for resolution?

As a note, the use of P248 replicates the practice of the qualification with section, verse, or paragraph (P958) — rather than addition as reference — to directly specify the article component. As the use is to drill-down within a work, rather than a typical citation/reference, changing these to be in the reference section seems incorrect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a mess.
Perhaps described by source (P1343) could just point to the article directly? Or, if the article must be separate in a qualifier, a different property should be used. Maybe applies to part (P518) or perhaps a new property should be created?
Mangling the scope of such a widely-used property to include something not at all similar seems like a really bad idea. --Yair rand (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yair rand:, okay, so we are needing to change it. The only other close 'active-link' property that I saw was subject of the statement (P805) as it is also called article, etc. and is to be as a qualifier. Applies to part is possible, though it doesn't have a natural ring as something to use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews, Jheald: do you have opinions here as you have been involved with some of the "described by source" work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

## Sorting of values

Currently, there's an open request for a property to store information about how to sort https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/sort_by_qualifier . It would be great to have more examples of cases where things currently aren't ordered well and we could profit from a better sort order. If anybody of you notice interesting cases, please add them to that discussion. ChristianKl () 14:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Vectors are Matrices

scalar (Q1289248) ${\displaystyle \subset }$ vector (Q13471665) ${\displaystyle \subset }$ matrix (Q44337) ${\displaystyle \subset }$ tensor (Q188524).

Actually it depends on the defention of the respective items. Could we anyway tag this with subclass of (P279)? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

To the extend that it depends on the definition of the respective items, about how we start by making that definition more clear? ChristianKl () 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There are multiple definitions to be dealt with;
• scalar ${\displaystyle \subset }$ row vector, column vector ${\displaystyle \subset }$ matrix ${\displaystyle \subset }$ multi-dimensional matrix ~ tensor
• scalar ${\displaystyle ~\subset }$ vector, covector ${\displaystyle \subset }$ tensor
I don't know which are considered primary definitions here. Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think it is pretty mixed up, scalars and vectors are allready tagged as tensors. The two relations you mentioned do not contradict, if you consider row vectors as a representation of covectors. (as defined in German) Bigbossfarin (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

## Get Wikidata item given site ID and page name

Hi, given a site ID (eg. `enwiki`) and a page name (eg: `Italy`) how can I get automatically Q38? I'd like to do that work with more than just one page, so this work should be automatic and quick. Thank you, --★ → Airon 90 17:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

API requests such as https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&sites=enwiki&titles=Italy&format=json would do the job, but you still have to parse the JSON object. See mw:Wikibase/API#wbgetentities for details. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's not a problem. I would use Python to do that work ;) Thank you very much, MisterSynergy! :) --★ → Airon 90 18:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also Special:ItemByTitle with which you can do things like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:ItemByTitle/enwiki/Italy. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
You can also use Pywikibot. What is your use case exactly? What problem are you trying to solve? Multichill (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I found the quickest way for me was to use a spreadsheet with the WP article name as first column, second "P31", third simply some bogus like "a" (all without the " marks), and then copy/paste the whole thing to https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/quick_statements.php , say "enwiki" in the first field there, and let it start to run (which will do nothing), and then copy the whole thing again from the text field there after a couple of seconds when the tool has converted everything to item numbers. Maybe there's a tool that does just this without the workaround I use, but this is what I came up with by accident. Anvilaquarius --08:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Have a look at pagepile. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This looks like what I want, but it doesn't really work. The output is not in table form, but a list with numbers and article names (which I don't want and don't need) and the alternative output in txt is without line breaks, neither is usable by c/p in my spreadsheet as quick as I would like to. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## FactGrid workshop in Berlin

Hey everyone :)

We are working with researchers from the University of Erfurt on a project called FactGrid. The goal is to build a wiki for researchers to collect data related to their research. It will use Wikibase as the underlying technology, just like Wikidata. We'll start with data related to the Illuminati based on the Gothaer Illuminati Research Database. You can find blog posts with more details and musings here. I also started a page on Wikidata about it here. My hope is that this will be one of the many Wikibase installations in Wikidata's ecosystem in the future that is highly connected with Wikidata and that Wikidata can partially import data from where wanted and needed. There will be a kick-off workshop at Wikimedia Deutschland's office in Berlin on the 1st and 2nd of December. It'd be great if we have a few more people there who want to drive this project forward and can help with their experience on Wikidata. If you'd like to attend please let me know. Details about the workshop are here.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It took me a while to understand the value of pushing external Wikibase installation but I came around to agreeing that it's a good idea. External projects can host original research. At WikidataCon I also understand the need of some projects to be able to simply create a new property to experiment with it, which Wikidata can't serve because we need to put more effort into creating properties that are actually working over problem domains.
The memorandum of understanding reads well and I'm happy to take part in the workshop. ChristianKl () 13:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## The expert versus the amateur contributor ... Help Needed

It's a simple thing I seek. Throughout the world are experts in the most obscure of things and much of that knowledge is in their heads. When they die, the knowledge is lost.

I have a rare English car called a Bristol (411, for those who know about them). I belong to an email forum that uses Yahoo... long in the tooth, and not the best way to record knowledge. So I have proposed to the members, mostly men, many of whom are over 60, that we should set up and use a wiki. We can't use Wikipedia because original source documentation would be deleted instantly... not encyclopedic. So I started looking around. I came across wikicars.org, but while it has a log-in, it does not have a create account option, nor can I find an email contact. It looks like it has not been used since 2010.

I then found this site, wikidata.org, but for the amateur volunteer, it's a bit daunting. Wikipedia I understand, and I can show others how to make entries on it. Not so sure about Wikidata.

Here is what we want to do:

The knowledge base needs to be permanent, not something maintained by a car club that could cease if its membership dwindles.

We wish to divide the knowledge into models from 1946 to about 2010. The 400, 401, 402... to 411 and then some of the more recent cars. Then we need subcategories just like one finds in car repair manuals... engine, brakes, body restoration, fixing instruments, etc. We need the subcategories to be simple to access... follow some instructions and post your knowledge, your photographs and drawings. We then will ask our colleagues to fill the pages with their knowledge. It's not like fixing a new car where you order parts from the dealer, and the old ones come apart easily. You have to know different ways to do it, including what parts came from other British car companies, what can be adapted, or what needs to be done better. All that will go into the Wiki, if we can get it going.

I would appreciate advice on how to accomplish this.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bristol7527 (talk • contribs) at 15. 11. 2017, 07:22 (UTC).

I don't see how Wikidata could help you. Maybe Wikia is something for you? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Wikidata could be suitable to include details about car models and cross-reference any existing manual about them. In some obscure corner of WMF sites, there is a lot of info on tractor models.
Information about individual cars might be harder to include, especially in the level of detail you are interested in.
--- Jura 07:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

--- Any idea how to gain access to Wikicars.org?Bristol7527 (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.whois.com/whois/wikicars.org gives you the contact information for the owner of Wikicars.org but I agree that setting up a new Wiki with Wikia is likley the better solution for you. ChristianKl () 12:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of which, is there any alternative to wikia? As in I know there are tons of wikifarm but most of them are so small that contribution toward them would be flooded within mass of webpages when searching via search engines. Wikia itself is an option but the way it's gearing toward social network and "fandom", embracing nonstandard toolkits which would hesitate users when they try to create new projects on it. I have proposed an WMF-backed project for it on meta but I don't think WMF would actually accept that proposal. What other options would be available? C933103 (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The proposal goes against Jimmy's financial interests so, there's pushback from that direction. On the other hand, if you really believe in the vision 2030 statement on bringing all kinds of knowledge under the Wikimedia umbrella it would make a lot of sense to also have a place within the project that can host English content that's not notable by enwiki standards.
If you want to invest a lot of efforts you could setup your own foundation and have as mission to hand over the project to the WMF as soon as the WMF would accept handover. If you get traction I don't think the WMF would oppose a handover. ChristianKl () 00:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Birds described as reptiles

I have discovered that we have a number of items, being protonym (Q14192851) of items about birds, but with descriptions saying they are reptiles, and with the same common name, which does not aid disambiguation. These include:

but I suspect that that list is far from complete. How should these be processed? And how can we find other such cases? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer  Support merging the second pair, as Q25652651 doesn't give me full things to be independent. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Both represent different concepts, Liuxinyu970226. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The concept of the Elegant Tern being a reptile is a new one to me; doubly so as the parent taxon is described as "genus of birds". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you'll should ask User:Mr. Ibrahem why his bot did this edit?! --Succu (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

### WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017

WikidataCon 2017 group photo

Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about a knowledge base conceived ten years ago, if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the Wikimedia Foundation; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries.

WD-FIST explained

And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there.

Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands.

Editor User: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:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your Wikipedia user talk page.

Charles Matthews (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## The Wikidata template in the English Wikipedia is up for deletion again

w:Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_15#Template:Authority_control, decide for yourself what to vote. --RAN (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

In the meantime, can't this be defined directly in the interface?
--- Jura 19:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I left my response (diff) after the proposer tried to come up with a lame excuse.
You know what the downside is of standing up to bullies? I'll probably get bullied a lot more in the future. Multichill (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like the discussion was closed before people could bring up the new Wikibase development that no longer requires the template being added to articles. Somehow Wikipedia seems to have lost the capacity to discuss ..
--- Jura 02:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Main page issue

Two quote from the main page (emboldening mine):

• Welcome to Wikidata - the free knowledge base with 38,643,300 data items that anyone can edit.
• 2017-11-12: The forty-three-millionth item, about an article in a scientific journal, is created.

These apparently-conflicting figures are likely to confuse people who do not understand the context - and the page's audience, new users, is likely to have such people in the majority. How can we improve things? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

IMO the creation of Hepatitis B or hepatitis C co-infection in individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus and effect of anti-tuberculosis drugs on liver function. (Q43000000) is not worth a entry on the main page. I think real achievements like average of 8 statements per item or 600M edits should be added to that section. Also other news, i.e. WikidataCon, could be added instead of the boring Q-count. --Pasleim (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think we shouldn't report "forty-three-millionth item" in the news-section. Especially a metric that includes deleted items is not a metric that's worthy to be celebrated. Wikimedia projects are supposed to measure their success by the number of active editors (people who edit 5/100 times per month). When we reach new milestones about our editorship that's worth celebrating by putting it into the news section.
I don't think that the fact that WikiCite raised the average statements per items to 8 by using a lot of statements in items about scientific papers is something to celebrate either.
Metric are a way to decide whether we make progress. When we ponder a policy change it's more important to think about whether it raises the number of active editors than whether it increases the number of items, the number of statements per item or the number of labels per item. ChristianKl () 18:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
To all users, you are free and encouraged to write all the news that you think they could be interesting. Pamputt (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Are imports of new datasets to Mix'n'Match and milestones in matching datasets appropriate for Main Page news? - PKM (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say yes. If we have "too more" information at some points, we may filter some of them but for now, let's go. Pamputt (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## QuickStatements and 2017 Community Wishlist Survey

I went over the limit of 3 proposals per user in 2017 Community Wishlist Survey and have to drop my proposal to Expand QuickStatements to allow wider variety of statements. If someone feels like this proposal is a good idea they can adopt it by adding their name as the Proposer and adding the page to meta:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

## How to link "Han-ji" articles on minnan wikipedia in wikidata?

On min nan wikipedia, a number of articles written in "han-ji" script have been created in "Talk" namespace, as oppose to latin scripts that are commonly found for articles on main namespace. Those articles in "Talk" namespace would be a duplicate of articles in main namespace but are written in different script. For example, see nan:Canada and nan:Talk:Canada. There seems to be a proposal to create a "hanji" namespace for articles written in hanji script on the wikipedia which have been passed but doesn't seems to be enacted yet. So:

2. Canada (Q21287484) is a permanent duplicated item (P2959) of Canada (Q16). On meta's community tech wishlist, I have expressed desire to enhance the system so that linked entry in Canada (Q21287484) can be added to Canada (Q16) directly without the need of creating duplicated item. However some users said it have been discussed before and the result is against such measure. Where was such discussion being made and why was that? C933103 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• There's value in being able to directly navigate a person to a page in a wiki if a page exist. At the moment you have multiple pages it's not clear where the user is supposed to be sent. That means that every tool has to incorporate the case. In the case you are proposing Wikidata can't directly send the person who wants to see the hanji version to the hanji version and the person who wants to see the latin version to the latin version.
Additionally, it seems like a hack. There's no good reason why there shouldn't be a separate subdomain for a separate script so that Wikidata can link to the two different versions under different subdomains. It would be better if the mediawiki software would be configuered in a way that allows in this case a single Wikipedia community to have two subdomains that point to the relevant scripts.
I looked at IETF and currently it seems like there isn't even a IETF language tag for something like nan-han-ji. It might be worthwhile to register one. ChristianKl () 23:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: What happened to nan-Hani, nan-Hans, or nan-Hant as appropriate? Also @C933103: and suffer from a similar problem. Mahir256 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed a hack. As for reason why it's done? There is a request for such a wikipedia on meta but Langcom still haven't verified the request yet (The request was 9 years old). Even if they process the request, they will likely turn it down too on the ground of the lack of ISO 639 code.
The script code for hanji should be either Hani, Hant or Hans. These combinations aren't registerede in IANA subtag registry yet. I suppose it's possible to ask wikimedia taiwan to reg relevant IETF combination but I don't think that'd help what we're talking about.
Other than nan/hak/cdo, hy/gom/mn are other wikipedias that have same situation although those articles are placed on main namespace instead. Additionally, vi and ko and mn have off-site wikis because of alternative script C933103 (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: See also phab:T165882, they are now requesting to create a "Hàn-jī" namespace so all the talk pages will be actual talk pages. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
But that's still not done yet. And jusging byu the lack of recent activity on the ticket I don't think it's going to be done anytime soonC933103 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: Sorry but what means "jusging byu"? I can't find wikt:jusging on Wiktionary, and wikt:byu seems to be a Rōmaji? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: sorry that is a typo of "judging by". C933103 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
It seems like the status quo is that languages like Min Nan try to hack around decisions of the language committee. This leaves to the bad consequences that different languages use different solutions for solving the problem of having multiple scripts.
I don't think it's worthwhile for Wikidata to try to accommodate some hack. It would be better to formulate a language policy that actually works for the communities in question so that they don't have to hack around the language committee.
One way to do this would be to write a RfC on meta that declares change the policy of needing a ISO 639 code into needing a valid IETF language tag.
It might also be worthwhile to talk to the WMF who actually want to help small wikis. A policy that results in off-site Wikis getting created should be neither in the interest of the Wikimedia community nor the WMF. ChristianKl () 18:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
There are actually talking about two situation here,
1. First, the use of Talk namespace to host hanji article in Minnan wikipedia. Since it's probably transient so it probably don't need much attention.
2. Second, after the phabricator ticket completed, then Minnan wiki will still have two separate article for each individual subject, and it will the same as at least half dozen other wikis being mentioned.
These would still need to be supported. And I wouldn't exactly call them "hack", as they have been used by various wikipedia including chinese wikipedia ever since their creation (for chines wikipedia, until the implementation of language converter), and probably predate any language policy. C933103 (talk) 05:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Is the use of diplomatic relation (P530) restricted to country with formal diplomatic ties?

• The label for the wikidata property in most western language only say "diplomatic relationship" without referring to it as formal or not.
• However the CJK label for the property refer to "Countries with diplomatic ties" signifying it should only be applied on countries that have formal diplomatic relationships.
• In the original application for the property, it was not made clear, although the proposed qualifier for start and end date indicate it might mean formal diplomatic relationship.
• In actual usage, the situation is mixed. For instance, in Taiwan (Q865), you see its diplomatic relation (P530) with countries like United Kingdom (Q145) and Panama (Q804) have been given an end date, there are also the like of United States of America (Q30), Australia (Q408) and Ukraine (Q212) that are not given an end date, especially the relationship between Taiwan (Q865) and Ukraine (Q212) were never formal but they're still linked there (with main article).
• Could its meaning be standarized? C933103 (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
• It seems to me that the pattern in which this property is supposed to be used is along with subject of the statement (P805) to point to an item about the actual relationship. Given that there might be Wikipedia articles about diplomatic relationship that aren't formal I would suggest that this property includes nonformal ties and it might make sense to standardize it that way.
Additionally, I think it makes sense to raise such a topic on the talk page of the property and ping relevant Wikiprojects. Having discussions like this on the project chat means that interested parties might not know about it. ChristianKl () 22:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Copied to Property_talk:P530, not surewhat wikiproject could be pinged. C933103 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Wikipedia article with multiple meaning in same article.

For example, ja:専用軌道 is currently introducing 3 different things on same page. 1. tramways (as defined by Japanese law) dedicated to cargo transport, 2. tramways (as defined by Japanese law) that are laid with dedicated right of ways, 3. railways laid on dedicated land. How should they be linked in wikidata? The current linked article to ko wikipedia in the currently linked item describe the (3.) point. C933103 (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Link to off site wiki?

As mentioned above, there is currently a wiki for Mongolian in Traditional Mongolian Script as uhaan wiki, a Vietnamese Han-nom Wiki at Hannom-rcv.org, a minnan hanji wiki at taigi-pahkho.wikia.com, and a Korean Hanja wiki at kore.wikia.com. Additionally there are also a large Korean general-purpose wiki at namu.wiki. And then there are also other wikis like many specific-subject wikia sites (like a proposal for a car wiki mentioned above), uncyclopedia (you know what it is), and baidu baike (largest chinese online encyclopedia on the internet although copyright and other aspects of the site are not that clean), and such. Is it possible to link all of them in the wikidata database? There are currently Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) for Encyclopædia Britannica (Q455), can these be handled the same way?C933103 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you are needing to review Wikidata:Wikidata for authority control and Wikidata:WikiProject Authority control if you are talking about linking item to item, rather than a link from the item to the official websites.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure what do you mean and not sure if these are related to what I'm talking aboutC933103 (talk) 04:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, then maybe you are looking for Help:Identifiers. It is unclear to me exactly what you are trying to achieve.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I mean, allow users to use wikidata to navigate toward items on other wikis in the same way that users can use wikidata to navigate toward items on wikipedia, encyclopedia britanhnica, and other WMF sites.C933103 (talk)06:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@C933103: We already have some properties that link to outside wiki's; just make a property proposal for the ones you think will be useful and that will allow adding these links. Or you can always add links with the more generic property described at URL (P973). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Odd system messages

I use the British English locale and have recently been getting a few system messages in Italian instead of in English, despite the rest of the interface being in English. For example, when entering data for title (P1476) I get "Linguaggio (obbligatorio)" instead of "Language (mandatory)" (which appears in the en and en-ca locales). Is there a logical reason for this? Jc86035 (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone had added a wrong translation on translatewiki.net, now fixed. It will be updated on Wikidata after few days. Stryn (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Importing thesis data from the University of Edinburgh Research Archive

Hi, at the University of Edinburgh we have been discussing importing the thesis data from the 27,000 records in the Edinburgh Research Archive (ERA) into Wikidata following on from the good work that Martin Poulter did with importing the Oxford Research Archive thesis data. e.g. South Asian Muslim politics, 1937-1958. So far we have decided on the statements we would like to create for the born digital records and for the pre-2000 records which can be found in this Google doc. The statements in red are the 'would like to include' but may not be initially possible. If there are any comments on the model proposed then do let me know. The main questions would be:

1. how to model the wide variety of thesis types on Wikidata. I count 24 types in the ERA collection and some do not have an item on Wikidata yet while Master of Letters and Master of Literature seem to be treated as 1 item rather two distinct items. We proposed a statement of P31 instance of thesis (Q1266946) with a qualifier added to this statement of instance of (P31) Master of Science (Q950900) depending on which of the 24 thesis types is needed. Open to other suggestions though.
2. Do we need an identifier property created for the Edinburgh Research Archive if we are using (P4101) Dissertation submitted to – University of Edinburgh (Q160302) and reference URL (S854) – “ERA link” as well as Described at URL (P973) – abstract link / ERA link.
3. If we use (P1922) – First line Should this be the first line of the thesis or the thesis abstract?

Any comments welcome. I can knock up an example data item for a born digital record and an example item for the pre-2000 records if this would be helpful? Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc, Pigsonthewing:, as the proposers of Ecole des chartes thesis abstract ID (P4465) and Wikidata:Property proposal/EThOS thesis ID. Mahir256 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Sounds good!

1. I would create separate items "Master of Science thesis", "Master of Letters or Litterature thesis", etc.
2. For 27K records, I would say so.
3. Use both, qualified with "applies to part"

Please include EThOS IDs, where you can, and once the property is created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I left some notes on the google doc. Two things I'd perhaps disagree with Andy on - firstly I think a generic "masters thesis" and then some kind of new property to indicate the degree it was submitted for would be a better way to go; and secondly a ERA identifier property seems superfluous if we have the URL plus also an ETHOS ID. Better to use the aggregator than the local value - simplifies querying once you're working across institutions. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew, these had mostly been my thoughts. I agree that the ERA identifier is superfluous when we are already planning to provide an aggregated ID and a link back to the source record on ERA. As for the hierarchy of the different thesis details, I must profess ignorance to best practice for these sorts of things on Wikidata so grateful to be getting some feedback ChaoticReality (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Andy, could you explain the thinking behind the seperate items for each type of thesis? This is my first time working with Wikidata (although I was on the ORA team for a couple of years pre-Martin) and so I am not so knowledgable about how categorisation works. My instinct tells me that asserting the item is a thesis first, (which, apart from the University, is the only data in common across these records) and then the more specific type gives them the broadest possible scope to be useful to wikidata. Since most of the "sub"-types already exist as WD objects, it would also mean only needing to create a couple of new objects, and reusing as many as possible of the objects already in use. Cheers ChaoticReality (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
With the exception of humans, we class items specifically ("instance of non-fiction book" or "...of novel" being prefereed to "...of book", for example), and make the classes subclasses of other classes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. So we would create a data item for each thesis type that doesn't already exist and use P279 to link them to the thesis object? Or P31? ChaoticReality (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Should we also update existing items that don't yet have links? For example Doctor of Philosophy (Q752297) is a subclass of Doctoral Degree (Q849697) but Doctor of Education (Q837184) is not. So should I include statements to make that connection? Thanks for all the assistance, ChaoticReality (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• If it's not already done, would you link them from the author item under the academic degree (P512)-statement?
--- Jura 13:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If the author has an existing Wikidata entry, and I can definitively match it to our details, then yes. Otherwise we haven't made a final decision yet as to whether to also create records for each author as opposed to just a text property of the thesis object. ChaoticReality (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If you can't match it with existing items, I'd suggest to create it with educated at (P69), academic degree (P512) and floruit (P1317); possibly also occupation (P106). This would be more than we have on many people.
--- Jura 14:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Nepali

May we know why we can not see "Nepali" Language while selecting the language?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 103.10.28.52 (talk • contribs) at 16:00, 16 November 2017‎ (UTC).

## position held (P39)

Hello all, I have a question about the qualifiers of position held (P39).

My problem is: Getúlio Vargas (Q156844), for example, was one of the Presidents of Brazil, during two periods (11-03-1930 to 10-29-1945 and 01-31-1951 to 08-24-1954). In his item, the position held (P39) property has two President of Brazil (Q5176750) values, both with start time (P580) and end time (P582). Is that correct? Another example is Geraldo Alckmin (Q964493), who is in his 4th mandate as a State Governor of Brazil in São Paulo (Q174) (from 2001 to 2003, re-elected in 2003 until resigning in 2006, elected in 2011 until 2015 and re-elected in 2015 until now (so no end time (P582) for that mandate)). What should one do? Put 4 entries of State Governor of Brazil? Propose the creation of a mandate property? Please, help. Ederporto (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ederporto: You have exactly the right idea; add the position multiple times for each contiguous interval during which the person held the position. Getúlio Vargas (Q156844) is set up properly, and Geraldo Alckmin (Q964493) may be set up similarly as well. (Note that with respect to contiguous intervals, there should be two position held (P39) statements--one for his tenure from 2001 to 2006 and one from 2011 to the present.) Mahir256 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Thanks for the quick asnwer! I'm worried about the result of having two equal values for P39, for example, in a infobox that takes P39 of Getúlio Vargas (Q156844). Will appear President of Brazil (Q5176750) twice? Does not seem to be right, and may be extremely laborious create an if command in the template code for every possible value of P39. Ederporto (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ederporto: It depends how it's handled for Brazilian politicians. In general, the approach is do a single statement for continuous mandates.
--- Jura 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you provide an actual reference for that? Previous discussions, in which you were invloved, led to the contrary (examples: 1, 2). The general consensus is to do a statement by mandate, even if they are contiguous, for the reasons explained in these discussions and below by Oravrattas. — Envlh (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are confusing France and the UK with other countries. UK MP have a very special model.
--- Jura 07:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You are not answering to my question and you are not providing any reference to the point of view you are pushing (and by the way, the first link is mainly about Estonia, not UK). — Envlh (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I would say that one position held (P39) is fine on continuing mandates where there would be no difference other than contiguous end time (P582)/start time (P580) dates. However, if we want to record different information about each mandate (e.g. a distinct elected in (P2715), or different significant event (P793) qualifiers pointing at separate inauguration items, or the like, then splitting into separate P39s would be appropriate. Some countries also use a new series ordinal (P1545) after a re-election, in which case we'd usually also want to split into separate statements. --Oravrattas (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

## Parameter: Medical specialty (P1995)

(moved from Wikidata:Contact the development team There is a problem/confusion with this parameter in mental disorders. In this way, the scheme seems to indicate that the disorder is only of a medical nature, when in reality its approach is often psychological/psychotherapeutic (not only psychiatric). For example, in this disorder Q1060310, at the parameter medical specility there is: psychiatry, but psychologists/psychotherapists often have to deal with it (or Q178190). Likewise, with most personality disorders (Q270673), except for cases of severe episodes of psychosis, because the treatment will have to be primarily psychiatric-pharmacological. The solution would be: 1) to add "psychology" or "psychotherapy" in the same parameter medical specialty; 2) to create a new parameter: "other specialty", where to add "psychology or "psychotherapy". How to fix this problem? --Dapifer (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Moved here from Wikidata:Contact the development team --ValterVB (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that you can add in property medical specialty (P1995) value psychoanalysis (Q41630) or psychology (Q9418) (I don't know what is correct). --ValterVB (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata is still far from being complete. There's no problem with adding multiple values. In the best case I would recommend to add the new value with a good reference of an academic paper that talks about how psychologists treat a given problem. ChristianKl () 20:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. I would like to add another parameter, called "other spacilty" under "medical specialty". But I do not know how to do it.
@ValterVB:, scusami per aver sbagliato "posto", non sapevo dell'esistenza di questa pagina di servizio. Comunque, sì, se non riuscissi ad inserire il nuovo parametro, sarebbe il caso di aggiungere "psicoterapia" e/o "psicologia" al parametro "specializzazione medica". Grazie ancora. --Dapifer (talk) 10:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Rebranding of Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians by EveryPolitician

There is some discussion on Wikidata talk:WikiProject every politician with a member of EveryPolitician (see Wikidata:EveryPolitician) who wants to rename the project Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians and/or create a duplicate at Wikidata:Wikiproject every politician. It seems to me that it just matches more closely their website's name. The organization (and supposedly the contributor trying to rebrand this) is currently paid by WMF to do some import work of their data. Feel free to comment. --
--- Jura 21:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There is a subtle but important distinction between "paid by WMF to do some import work of their data" and "in receipt of a WMF project grant to support their work"; the latter being factual. Furthermore, it appears to be Jura who wants to rename the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Initially, I thought it needed renaming, but it appears that EveryPolitician just created a duplicate and wants to redirect the initial one. So practically it is Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians that is being rebranded.
--- Jura 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I've left a more detailed note at the EveryPolitician talkpage, but Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians doesn't really seem to exist - it's a dead page with no activity, few useful links, etc. I'm not sure what merging the project with activity into the one without any activity would achieve. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: Can you stop misrepresent the reality please? First, you claim that a member of EveryPolitician wants to rename WikiProject Politicians to WikiProject every politician. In fact, as noted by Andy Mabbett, you started the discussion to do the contrary. Then, you claim that EveryPolitician duplicated WikiProject Politicians with WikiProject every politician. Check the history. EveryPolitician created both projects, WikiProject every politician first, which is only a renaming of Wikidata:EveryPolitician (yes, a redirect is missing), and WikiProject Politicians, which was never active. We know that you don't like EveryPolitician and that you don't care about breaking other people's work on this topic (« it has been incredibly disruptive and destructive », « work which you have now broken », etc.), but please, stop mislead people with a reality that is shared only by yourself. — Envlh (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
According to a paid contributor of EveryPolitician: "we created Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians before deciding to call it WikiProject every politician instead.". If you want to discuss the datamodel that EveryPolitician tried to introduce to Wikidata (with WMF grant money) and finally dropped, we can do that. Obviously, feel free to participate in the discussion: Wikidata_talk:EveryPolitician#too_much_specific_items_for_legislature_members.
--- Jura 07:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be a degree of misunderstanding as what "EveryPolitician" is here. EveryPolitician is not an organisation — it's a project set up around three years ago by mySociety (Q10851773), a UK-based charitable civic-tech organisation, to try to create a database of every politician in the world, starting with gathering that data for (almost) every national level legislature. In the last year we have changed the focus of that project so that Wikidata can become that database, rather than us duplicating effort. As part of that we have received a WMF grant — but that is very much not about simply importing data from one project to the other (which is neither possible nor desirable). One strand of this is being able to track the quality of existing political information in Wikidata, to help see gaps and errors etc. We are currently doing that at Wikidata:WikiProject every politician. We had previously created an initial stub at Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians, but that was never used (or even known by anyone beyond Lucy and myself), and I believe this should be simply redirected. This is not us somehow trying to hijack a pre-existing project and rename it, as the initial description here could imply. This is us making a tentative start at one name, and then deciding to switch to one much more evocative of what we're actually hoping to achieve, similar to Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Just to correct, the import initially was at Wikidata:EveryPolitician (named as the website this comes).
--- Jura 08:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
As has been explained earlier, that was set up in 2015 by Andrew Gray, to look at how to use the external mySociety project within Wikidata, long before the grant or the mySociety switch to making Wikidata the replacement approach (in fact it was that effort, and the things that we both learned from that, that led directly to this "reboot".) That earlier approach is largely obsolete now, as the goal is not to simply harmonise the two datasets, but to build a project and community within Wikidata to generate and maintain political data. --Oravrattas (talk) 08:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it's worth mentioning that Wikidata:EveryPolitician is the page that was on the GBP 40,000 grant application (mw:Grants:Project/mySociety/EveryPolitician#Documentation).
I find it problematic that you keep deleting content from project documentation pages while it's being discussed in the forum.
To clearly differentiate WMF websites from EveryPolitician, I think we should restore the more appropriately named Wikidata:WikiProject Politicians and Wikidata:EveryPolitician.
--- Jura 08:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, yes, obviously when we applied for the grant we pointed at the page that already existed and led us towards making the application, rather than the project that we didn't create until after receiving the grant. If any of the links in the project proposal or elsewhere are now confusing because they point to information that existed then, rather than now, we can easily change those links to point to historic versions of URLs, but as one of the problems you're raising is that duplication is confusing, reverting changes that try to harmonise things and clean everything up doesn't help matters much. --Oravrattas (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Links to previous versions of pages are helpful if the content evolved, they are only marginally useful when it was merged/moved and replaced by something else.
In the current situation, it seems that EveryPolitician amalgamates anything related under then name of its website. The result is that things are less structured than before the GBP 40,000 grant.
--- Jura 12:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

## Birth date of a geisha

Dear community, I am not aware of the Wikidata rules that applied concerning the birth date of living people who do not want that others know it. If you know how we are supposed to manage such case, please let a message here. Pamputt (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As a starting point for discussion, the en.Wikipedia policy is here: en:Wikipedia:DOB, and says:

With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year,

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• The conclusion of enwiki is a bit odd, maybe US-centric. birthday (P3150) can be used if the full date shouldn't be included, but the day/month can. Some wikis routinely include that, but not the year.
In the current case, it seems that the date would be hard to reference. Maybe we could simply add the century.
--- Jura 11:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Her year of birth was included in the bibliographic information in the book she authored, and the Library of Congress had her full birthday at LCCN. Someone pretending to be her emailed them to have it deleted, or Fiona Graham herself was impersonating someone advocating on her behalf when they contacted me and told me they were going to write LCCN and have it removed. It is possible that all the SPAs that edit her English Wikipedia entry are her, I do not know. Both choices are disturbing. --RAN (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Living people (draft) does not include date of birth (P569) on its list of statements likely to violate privacy (or be challenged), but perhaps it should? This is the first example I'm aware of where data about a living person has been asked to be removed in this manner. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
This is about w:Fiona Graham and she doesn't want people to know how old she is. A person wrote me asking me to remove the date in the English Wikipedia, because geishas do not reveal their age, and this person said they were advocating on the behalf of Graham. When I showed that the birth date was a matter of public record, they said they would get that record removed ... and they did! By pretending to be the geisha, or the geisha was pretending to be an independent advocate when they wrote me. So, identity deception does occur. That geisha's record has at least 10 SPAs editing it, they can be seen in red. Geishas may have a 100 year old rule about not revealing their age, but we need to follow the 2,000 year old rule that an encyclopedia should be complete and accurate. If you want the anonymity of a geisha life, then do not become an author and reveal your age and your real name in a book. The SPA User:Lilly1985 is deleting the information here. The argument was that geishas do not reveal their age and since that did not get enough support, the argument has been reworded as to prevent identity theft. We all get old, deal with it. --RAN (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it leaves a big gap if we delete/oversight it. The only problem is that it's likely to be re-add unless some more general statements is added to Wikidata instead.
--- Jura 07:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm intrigued as to what is supposedly "US centric" about the quoted en.Wikipedia guideline. Can anyone enlighten us? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The en.Wikipedia guideline considers the birthday more worthy of protection then the year of birth. The Japanese consider the year of birth to be more worthy of protection. The Gaisha has no real problem with her birthday being publically known but she has an issue with her year of birth being publically known. ChristianKl () 19:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Is this about her hiding her age, or is it a custom in Japan to not reveal your birth year? Can you point me to a reference on the custom, if that is the answer. --RAN (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
That would be an explanation if everywhere that is not Japan is the USA. Clearly, that is not so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
In the discussion that lead to the creation of our birthday property someone advocated that we need the property because Japan has many people for which the birthday is public knowledge while the birthyear isn't. I didn't introduce the term "US-centric" into this discussion but I think he differences between US (or Western) norms and Japanese were the point of contention. ChristianKl () 09:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we have rules. I would be okay with a rule that says: "If a subject request information about them to be removed that isn't of public interest, we will delete/oversight it". I'm also fine with adding some qualifier before "public interest". Given the importance of birthdates for disambiguating people I would however make no special rule for it. ChristianKl () 19:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

How do we know we are in communication with her, there are at least 10 SPAs deleting her birth date from the English Wikipedia article, how do we know we are not being catfished? --RAN (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
My point of view is the following, since this information (her birth date) is easy to find on the Web, we cannot avoid, if we decide to remove this information, that someone readd it in the future. So if this geisha does not want that people know her birth date, she should start to ask to other websites (VIAF, upclosed.com, ...) to remove this information. Once the information will not be available, it could be removed here. Pamputt (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Amazon refused to removed birth dates/ages from IMDB They decided to not tolerate forced "removal of factual information from the public domain." --RAN (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

## Language codes revisited

Hoi, at this time the introduction of new codes to be used in Wikidata has all the outside qualifications of a stamp collection. There are no arguments given why particular codes are to be introduced. It is silly. It is silly particularly because with the introduction of Wiktionary data there will be an influx of codes that will have a known use; they are after all what Wiktionary offers at this time. For this reason I want us to stop adding codes unless there is a strong argument and concentrate on the needs for identifying Wiktionary content for the language, the dialect it is said to be. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I do not really understand what you are talking about. Do you have any link that points to a page where the problem is explained? Pamputt (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
#Monolingual language code creation process. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I get the point now. To reply to GerardM I do not see any relation between adding language code and Wikidata support for Wiktionary because from what I understood, Wiktionary lexeme would use Q-item for languages and dialects, not language code. Could you develop a bit more? Pamputt (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
So your English has no relation to English as per the standard? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
As soon as a person adds name in native language (P1559), native label (P1705) or inscription (P1684) they need a code. If a person wants to record 10 entries with one of those, they need to have the language code acccepted. It seems that you argue that this isn't enough and it's bad to add languages that are only seldomly used. Can you give an argument why it's bad to have many codes? ChristianKl () 19:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
No that is not what I said. The same person has requested many codes. This is not a stamp collection so even though it might be useful, it is requested without arguments. The other reason is that there have codes requested that are questionable. The final reason is that we are looking towards a great amount of languages from Wiktionary that have to be mapped to codes. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Modifier

What's the best way to create a WikiData item for modifying occupations? I'd like to distinguish assistant attorney general from attorney general, for example. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Just create it and make it a subclass of attorney general and instance of "position". Almost all of the cabinet level positions need to have their assistant level positions created. --RAN (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
We have United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Q7889546) and United States Secretary of the Treasury (Q4215834). Does anyone know of a better example showing the hierarchical structure of a cabinet level position with at least 4 layers with second assistants and third assistants? --RAN (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
One would think that they have their deputy level, and their assistant level, though those would be dynamic in time. An example.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## date of baptism in early childhood (Property:P1636)

We have date of baptism in early childhood (P1636) but do we have "place of baptism in early childhood"? RAN (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

No, but location (P276) qualifier is usually applied. (propolal failed) - Kareyac (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Works fine as a qualifier. The place of baptism is interesting and useful, though usually not of consequential value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## Module

Anyone can help me create module(s) for Wikipedia, to take data from wikidata ? Xaris333 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe existing (Module:Wikidata (Q12069631), Module:Wikidata2 (Q25936424)) are acceptable, and look at Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects. - Kareyac (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I know that pages. I need specific module. Xaris333 (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
For what? Maybe already exist. --ValterVB (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: I want a module to show the most recent value (according to point in time (P585)) of ranking (P1352) with the date in brackets. For example, Argentina national football team (Q79800) --> ranking (P1352). It must show "4 (16 October 2017)". (I don't want to use preferred option). Consider that determination method (P459) must always be FIFA World Rankings (Q180825). Xaris333 (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Italian template it:Template:Wikidata based on Italian module it:Modulo:Wikidata can do it, you can see the result in my sandbox on Italian wiki: it:Utente:ValterVB/Sandbox/Temp. The first row show all the results, the second shou only the more recent. --ValterVB (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: Two problems. The main one is that your example is not considering that determination method (P459) must always be FIFA World Rankings (Q180825). Check your sandbox. Xaris333 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes but I used only standard template/module, I think that is easy modify the module for add a filter. --ValterVB (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
@ValterVB: Yes. But I need a new module to do what I want. Can you help with this? Xaris333 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Not so expert but if I found something I ping you. --ValterVB (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I have 90.000+ IMDb ids with labels which are not used in WD for now. Could anybody provide them with information from IMDb like instance of (P31), publication date (P577) or possible descriptions, so that we can add valid new items for all IDs? I saw that some of you did already scraping data from IMDb.

Notified participants of WikiProject Movies Queryzo (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

## QuickStatements

Hello. I am trying to add previous FIFA World Ranking with QuickStatements. I have already add the latest ranking. I have a serious problem. If a team have not change ranking, the tool don't add the second value as a new value. It just adding the new source and points to the previous value. This is a problem because the date of publication of the ranking is different and the points are different. Please see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q79800&oldid=595437481 (ranking (P1352). That the way is must be it the item [ https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q79800&oldid=595441497].

Is there a way to solve that? Is there other tools to use? I have the data. I am ready to add it. I need a tool :) Xaris333 (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I find this gadget rather useful, but what I don't like about it (or maybe I don't know how to use it properly) is that when dragging statements from, let's say, one of Wikipedia's langauge versions, you still need to add the reference (imported from) manually. Is there any better way to do it? Powerek38 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Powerek38: It bugs me too, I will try to rewrite this plugin in the next few days. Yarl 💭  00:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## floruit (P1317)

If I have multiple dates, about which is known, that the person in question has been alive, which would be the best one to be used for floruit (P1317)? The most recent one, the oldest one, random? --Edgars2007 (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that the references are of equal quality: If there is a date of birth or date of death, the one furthest away from that. Otherwise the first and the last. At least that gives an idea when the person lived.
--- Jura 05:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: Use instead work period (start) (P2031) and work period (end) (P2032). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## If you have time today…

… you may want to improve the brand new CGF athlete ID (P4548) by matching IDs on Mix'n'match. There are thousands of entries so any help would be appreciated. Thierry Caro (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Tennis: You may also want to help with Tennis Temple player ID (P4544) through this. Again, there are thousands of IDs waiting to be matched to our items! Thierry Caro (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Deletion of article in tg-wiki does not always remove it from wikidata item

Article tg:Энрике Пакеко Лима was deleted on Oct 23, but was not removed from Henrique Pacheco Lima (Q197584). Wasn't this supposed to be done automatically? --Ghuron (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it should have happened automatically. Unless someone comes up here with a good idea, we can ask the developers what happened.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
26 October, it was mass-deletion of stubs about football players. Maybe the problem is that the system can't process such massive deletions?--Soul Train (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

## Infobox medical condition: medical specialty

I talked about this problem on it.wiki, with a Wikidata administrator and in this chat. But I did not manage to solve the problem (surely, because of my poor English and my little experience on Wikidata). The problem concerns the infobox of mental illnesses and medical specialty: psychiatry (P1995).

All over the Wikipedia, in the infobox about mental disorders, it appears as a specialty, exclusively psychiatry. This, in addition to confusing the reader, can be a problem. A person suffering from one of these mental disorders, looking at the infobox, believes that the only way to cure his disorder is to seek psychiatric care.

For example, a person suffering from this personality disorder → Q509122 (avoidant personality disorder) might believe that his disorder should be treated according to the psychiatric method. When, his true specialty is "psychotherapy" or "psychology" (except for rare cases, when the patient has a serious reactive psychosis). And this is true for many mental disorders. Often, psychiatric treatment, for some disorders is not recommended.

Psychotherapy remains the strongest specialty in this field, often alone or accompanied by psychiatric/pharmacological treatments. But psychotherapy (often conducted by psychologists) never appears, as does psychology.

In the past discussion, it was decided to add "psychology" or "psychotherapy" to the parameter "medical specialty". But that did not work, as you can see here and here. And of course I understand, are not medical specialties. But instead, in this personality disorder → Q178190 (obsessive-compulsive disorder), pscicology , has been inserted correctly.

Now, and this is the problem, where or how can we add these specializations (psychotherapy or psychology)? It's possible create a new property? For example, other specialty: psychotherapy or psychology, replacing the omnipresent psychiatry specialization? --Dapifer (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that now psychotherapy (Q183257) is homonym (Q160843): 1) specialty (Q1047113); 2) therapy (Q179661). --Fractaler (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Given the constraints that are set psychology (Q9418) doesn't violate them but psychiatry (Q7867) does violate the constraint. When there's conflict it's worthwhile to add references to your claims but I see no reason why the non-constraint violating psychology (Q9418) should be removed if it would be properly referenced. ChristianKl () 09:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I still do not understand how we can solve the problem. Although I should look for a source, every time for a single mental disorder (and it would be a long work), there will always be someone who will say, "psychology/psychotherapy is not a medical specialty." Of course this can not be a solution, as we have seen. Would not it be the case to add another property or find another less ambiguous solution? --Dapifer (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If different people consider different things to be true and both people have references for their view Wikidata is capable of displaying both positions and use statement disputed by (P1310). It's worth noting that we do have medical treatment (P924). If you still think we need a new property, feel free to write a property proposal under https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal ChristianKl () 11:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem of homonymy (Q21701659) has only one solution - by clarification (ie, the introduction of terms that will have only 1 definition, meaning). Homonyms in Wikidata produce only chaos, as we see it now in the next concrete example. --Fractaler (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I try, I think is the least controversial solution. I do not have much experience with Wikidata, so I do not know how the "elements" or "properties" work and I have never even created one. I just know this is a problem... although apparently small. Anyway, let's see what happens. --Dapifer (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Done here, I hope it is clear. --Dapifer (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## A link has been changed for more than a month, but on en.wiki it still uses the old one.

Resolved

Q16465: the link for zh.wiki has been changed to zh:Wikipedia:典范条目 since 1 October 2017‎. But on English Wikipedia w:Wikipedia:Featured_articles, it still uses the old zh:Wikipedia:特色条目.

What went wrong here, and how can I fix it? Thanks.--66.76.81.9 04:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem was fixed. New name link is now shown for zh.wiki. --Was a bee (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Fireattack (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Recently I have often seen Wikinews article sitelinks connected to items about Wikipedia articles. However, according to Wikidata:Wikinews/Development#Interproject links it is pretty clear that Wikinews categories correspond to Wikipedia articles (somewhat similar to the situation with Commons), and Wikinews article sitelinks are always grouped into a separate item (with instance of (P31) Wikinews article (Q17633526)).

Since there were a couple of reverts after I separated Wikinews article sitelinks from Wikipedia article sitelinks, I would like to ask whether Wikidata:Wikinews/Development#Interproject links is still up to date or not. Intuitiveley it describes a reasonable solution, but maybe in practice there are problems which I am not aware of, and which have not been codified in the linked page.

@De Wikischim, Ymnes: FYI. Do we have a Wikinews taskforce? —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is relevant if a separate category on a particular subjects exists on Wikinews. In this specific case however, there is only a Wikinews article. So this is automatically the only corresponding page on Wikinews. De Wikischim (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I personally think wikinews article (news) should group themselves only, and Wikinews categories are more for concept (the real article for WP) themselves. — regards, Revi 08:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

## Where are wikidata to wikipedia links available?

Where can one find the mapping between Wikidata and Wikipedia. I can see the links online in both Wikidata and Wikipedia, but I cannot find the links in neither the RDF, JSON nor the XML-dumps.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.185.101.112 (talk • contribs) at 09:51, 20 November 2017‎ (UTC).

See mw:Wikibase/Indexing/RDF Dump Format#Sitelinks - the format is <wikipedia article> schema:about <wikidata item> in the RDF dump. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Create item for each device model in Wikidata?

From the viewpoint of the Wikidata project: Is it desirable to have each device model as an item? E.g. have an item for each row of en:Comparison of Fritz!Box devices including and maybe even properties for each column. Same for other device categories e.g. (smart) meters, lamps and other sensors/actuators. --Saerdnaer (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

In some cases I might say "it depends". I think anything where's the information is notable enough to be written down in a table in EnWiki is clearly important enough to be within Wikidata. There's a goal to develop the capability to automatically generate tables from Wikidata and to do that we have to be able to store all information that's of interest to the various Wikipedia projects. ChristianKl () 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
"Goal"? Listeria does it already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## BREAKING CHANGE: wbcheckconstraints detail output

Hi all!

This is an announcement for a breaking change to the output of the WikibaseQualityConstraints constraint checking API, to go live on . It potentially affects clients that use the wbcheckconstraints API action. (We are not aware of any such clients apart from the checkConstraints gadget, which is not affected.)

Currently, the description of a constraint in the API response includes the `detail` and `detailHTML` fields, which contain the constraint parameters. The gadget has never used these fields, since the error messages for some time now contain all the information needed to understand the constraint violation (that is, the constraint parameters are part of the message where necessary). Additionally, since the move from the `{{Constraint}}` templates to constraint statements on properties (using property constraint (P2302)), parsing constraint parameters is no longer the complex task it once was, and consumers interested in the constraint parameters can inspect the constraint statements using the standard Wikibase APIs or the Wikidata Query Service.

Since these two fields can account for up to 40% of the wbcheckconstraints API response size, and we want to start caching those responses soon, we will remove the `detail` and `detailHTML` fields on . This is already in effect on the Wikidata constraints test system; you can test your tools or other code there.

Relevant tickets:

Relevant patches:

Please let us know if you have any comments or objections. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Help change a property pleae

I have posted a question at Talk:Q6343552#Is this item correct for the he-wikipedia a few weeks go, but no one answered. I would like to go ahead and correct the label, but don't know how to. If I try to edit and save I get a message:Could not save due to an error. Item Q13244694 already has label "קטגוריה:מנכ"לים אמריקאים" associated with language code he, usi.

Can anyone help? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

@Ottawahitech:
in fact, you could not change the link on Category:American chief executives (Q6343552), because the one you wanted to add in replacement is already used on Category:American business executives (Q13244694)
I can't read hebrew, and therefore cannot check which is which, but you've got to remove a link from the item it is linked to, to be able to add it on another item. :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Website property detect language?

Is there a way to set an official website property which varies depending on the language of the wiki it's used on? For example, I'm trying to add the official website for Q650929 which is http://www.koga.com, however this URL redirects to the company's Dutch website at http://www.koga.com/nl (the English website is http://www.koga.com/en, and there are also French and German versions). If there's not a way to send a different URL to different wikis, is there a standard here for which to choose as the default? Ivanvector (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with http://www.koga.com? They might change the system one day to http://nl.koga.com for example. Use the most stable URL. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if that's what needs to be done then so be it. If they change the websites then it's a matter of updating the data anyway, maybe they change their main URL to http://www.kogabicycles.com or something. No URL is permanent. Ivanvector (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Qualify with language of work or name (P407). However, are you sure the redirect is not dependent on your browser's language setting, or your locale? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's not dependent, but as I'm English and in Canada, I doubt that's the case. Thanks for the tips. Ivanvector (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Military Service numbers

While we have United States Armed Forces service number (P2028), we don't have the equivalent for other countries. I added a service number for a British sailor in this edit; is there a better method? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I remember saying at the time of the property proposal that we should have a generic "military service number" rather than such a narrowly defined property (US only, 1918-1974), and we could use a qualifier to indicate the affiliation (or numbering system, etc). It's only been used a handful of times - perhaps now is a good opportunity to make that change? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have a couple of data sources for UK & commonwealth people... But then, what does a dedicated, qualified, property offer us over catalog code (P528) with the same qualifiers? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, potentially, any identifier could be catalog code (P528) with appropriate qualifiers ;-).
More seriously, I think the major benefit is that you can do a query to say "give me P2028 service number, and whatever numbering system or branch it's in", without already knowing the qualifier, but confident that you'll get something appropriate to the general topic. If you use P528 then you might get back anything that's been associated with that field, including non-military stuff; if you don't already know what the qualifier is going to be then you can't filter on it. Something like WWI UK service numbers (which were remarkably granular - at points individual battalions had their own sequences) would make it hard to predict qualifiers in advance. I think for a broad class of numbers it's fair to split it out. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Any identifier with no formatter URL could be. But your other points is well made. If we're going to repurpose P2028, how should we proceed - is this discusison sufficent? 10:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

## Using ranks for false statements

For various items, multiple sources may claim different things. In taxonomy, it might be that a taxon is an accepted name, or that it might be an unacceptable synonym. For humans, it might be a birth year which may be conflicting within different sources, or that a human might not have actually existed at all and just been a fictional myth. For these statements, in my opinion, we should include all possible statements, and using Wikidata:Ranks to help show which is the most acceptable statement. This reasoning seems to be supported by Wikidata:Tours/Ranks, which states that:

Within a large knowledge base, it's still important to record the previous values of items. These records—in the form of statements with multiple values—help us to better understand the world, see patterns and relationships, and make connections and predictions based on what we already know. [...]A deprecated rank is used for a value that contains information that may not be considered reliable or is known to include errors. For example, an item of a city may feature an incorrect population figure that was published in a historic document. The statement is not wrong as the figure is accurate according to the (erroneous) historic document, however because it known to contain errors it should receive the deprecated rank.

I have found sources (for which we have external identifiers as well) that claim Phalaena citrata Linnaeus, 1761 (Q43242043) is an acceptable taxon, or at least it once was and therefore sinstance of (P31):taxon (Q16521) and parent taxon (P171) etc. should be added, since we should not do original research and determine which sources are "right", and simply add all data we can find, and add citations to them (and later rank these statements with Wikidata:Ranks. However, Brya (talkcontribslogs) removed these statements (which I should have added the sources for), and added editing notes in the item description "name that may not be used" (something which should be on the talk page). This name was once used, and we should add statements to show that (and have "end dates", as well as mark such statements as deprecated).

I brought up this question on Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Taxonomy#Deprecated_status, where I thought would get some positive response that my reasoning was sound, but instead got responses such as "We don't need all the GBIF garbage" (meaning that we should not include statements based on that source), "our main goals is two fix errors we find in the Wikipeadias" (we should right wrongs, and do orignial research and exclude sourced data and statements, based on our own judgements, and not include all possible information, despite being sourced; see the incorrect population figure in the quote above from Wikidata:Tours/Ranks for a counter argument). I also got a response that including all available data is original research, and instead that excluding statements which most sources do not mention is not. And lastly, that we should not use Wikidata:Ranks because third-party tools and queries might not work properly with these.

It is my understanding that we should include as many statements as possible, right or wrong if we can properly cite them. Is that an incorrect understanding of Wikidata's goals and purpose? "There is no truth, only sources"... Thankful for insights from other users. (tJosve05a (c) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, that is how wikidata is supposed to work - even a P31 statement could be deprecated or given an end date if it is no longer considered valid; reason for deprecation (P2241) can be used to provide additional context for deprecation. We also have statement disputed by (P1310) to clarify where a statement may be disputed. Deprecated statements should not be returned in most queries, but they should not be deleted unless it is clear they were never supported by the original source (or were unsourced). @Brya: care to explain what's going on here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Josve05a should know better. The WMF vision speaks of making "the sum of all knowledge" available; that is knowledge, based on information, based on data. The purpose is to have a place where the reader can go to when he does not want to be confused by commercial claims, propaganda, false news, drivel, etc.
To stay with the population figure, suppose there is a database, somewhere out there, that says that publicist A states that the population of New York City in 2016 was 69, while publicist B holds that the population of New York City in 2016 was 254, then that is no reason to copy that into Wikidata, not even with a deprecated status.
If a user cannot tell right from wrong he does not belong in the Wikimedia franchise and should not make any edit: being able to tell right from wrong is what he is here for. At the Wikipedias there are policies to help him tell right from wrong, such as NOR, NPoV and VER. And competency in the field he addresses is expected. It is only when there is doubt among the experts, in reliable literature that a user should avoid labelling something as "wrong" or "right": if the literature is divided on the question of whether cattle constitute a species or a subspecies then it is not allowed to say that the name of cattle is Bos taurus and that the name at the rank of subspecies, Bos primigenus taurus, is wrong: there is lots of support for either position.
What Josve05a proposes to do here is to replace accurate information by junk, and apply a label "deprecated" as if that would reduce its misleadingness. In the matter of naming organisms, scientists have laboured for a century and a half now, to create order out of chaos, coming to international agreement on rules to govern names, and on rulings on what names may not be used (ever). This is one of the big successes of international cooperation (which is not quite achieved in measurements, a much simpler matter: part of the world uses inches, while the rest uses centimeters). Mostly this nomenclature draws quite black and white distinctions. The ICZN (Q1071346) has ruled (Opinion 450, 1957) to suppress the name Phalaena, which means that it cannot be the name of a taxon, and that none of the combinations with Phalaena can be the name of a taxon. There is good reason for this, as the name caused great confusion in nomenclature. The ruling is as black and white as can be: there is no confusion. The Wikidata entry (Q11887871) clearly states that this is a suppressed name and even links to the ButMoth ID page which says so. That it was once (long ago) regarded as a taxon is unmistakably included in that statement. No need to introduce confusion. - Brya (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We generally don't remove wrong information when there are references for the information but deprecate statements. I see no reason why there should be a depricated instance of (P31) taxon statement here. There's no reason to have special rules for taxons that differ from how we deal with wrong information that can be backed up by references in other domains in Wikidata. ChristianKl () 10:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Without expressing a view on any of the above, I have changed the description of Phalaena Linnaeus (1758) (Q11887871) from "suppressed name (do not use)" to "suppressed taxon name", and added the alias "Phalaena". Also, I am not convinced that the claim "instance of (P31) = Noctuidae (Q459180)" is helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

instance of (P31) = Noctuidae (Q459180) seems wrong. If anything subclass of (P279) would be appropriate. ChristianKl () 10:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, "subclass of NOCTUIDAE" is guaranteed to be wrong, given that a name cannot be a class, let alone a subclass, nevermind a subclass of a class of organisms. Indeed, "instance of NOCTUIDAE" admittedly looks odd, but at least indicates a relationship. Given the confusion surrounding many of these objectively invalid names this is of eminent practical importance. - Brya (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

## Discussion: We must delete genes that are deprecated by NCBI?

For those who are interested: discussion. --ValterVB (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Red Wikipedia links and Wikidata

On Wikipedia we have red links to indicate an article doesn't exist. Often an article about the subject exists in another language. Currently we don't really have a consistent system to keep track of this. We do have Template:Red wikidata link (Q15977575) and Template:Interlanguage link (Q13606208) in some language Wikipedia's, but both seems to be a lot of manual article work that don't really seem to scale.

Would this be something we could store in the Wikidata items? So for example for Malang (Q11095) that the wanted article should land on nl:Malang (regentschap)? That would make this data available in a structured format. A gadget on the local Wikipedia could change red links to include links to other languages based on your babel option or even links to invoke the translation extension. It also becomes to include this data in queries.

We would need a way to store this. A new string property would make sense ("wanted article"?) with some qualifier to indicate the project (new or existing one?) like for example Dutch Wikipedia (Q10000).

Anyway, thinking out loud here. Is this a direction we should investigate? Input appreciated. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Multichill: The Mandarin Wikipedia has an amazing system whereby many of the red links there have tooltips with links to a page in another language. (See the template in action here.) It is worth seeing if fallbacks involving sitelinks from Wikidata can be incorporated into this template or something similar. Such a development would be different from the existing `{{Q}}` and `{{P}}` templates on other wikis in that it links not to the Wikidata item itself, but to a sitelink on another wiki that is present within the Wikidata item. Mahir256 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

## Historical humans who also appear in fiction

Bear with me. This is long. I am struggling with modeling some historical figures who are best known in their fictional or legendary forms. Yesterday I ran across an item new to me, Personnage historique in frwiki, to which I have added an EN label and description "fictionalized human (Q3375731): character in literature inspired by an actual person in history, often heavily romanticized". The linked frwiki article specifically calls out Roland (Q207535) and Cyrano de Bergerac (Q213614) as falling into this category.

Question: Can we model such persons as both human (Q5) and fictionalized human (Q3375731)? ("Fictionalized human" currently has no instances.)

Some observations:

• Most Wikipedias have a single article for the historical and fictional character, so for interwiki purposes a single item in Wikidata is best.
• In a few cases Wikipedias have separate articles, especially when the person is better known by a variant name in one context: the Arthurian character Ywain (Q20751922) son of Urien <inspired by>Owain mab Urien (Q1486268).
• My inner ontologist, who is very strict, says the legendary/fictional character who is based on a historical person should always have a separate item, but that causes problems in linking to Wikipedias which typically lead off with the historical figure and go on discuss the legends which may or may not be more notable than the actual figure.

My immediate example is Yvain's father, Urien (Q1263208) king of Rheged. In fiction, Urien is married to Morgan le Fay. In history, Urien was married to someone else. If Urien is both "human" and "fictionalized human", then we might say <spouse> "Morgan le Fay" <applies to part> "fictionalized human". (Is there a better way to qualify this?)

This solution would also allow us to say Charlemagne (Q3044) <present in work> "Matter of France (Q2487521): body of literature and legendary material associated with the history of France, in particular involving Charlemagne and his associates", since "fictionalized human" now that it has surfaced should be a valid subject for present in work (P1441). We could also then say Matter of France (Q2487521) has <characters> Charlemagne, Roland, etc., which would cause constraint violations now since they are <instance of> only human (Q5) today.

I see a spectrum of characters in Wikidata from "definitely real" to "definitely fictional" as follows:

I believe we should maintain a distinction between fictionalized human (Q3375731) and legendary figure (Q13002315). A "fictionalized human" is definitely historical, but there is some question about "legendary" humans.

I'd love to know how others see this problem. Thanks, all. - PKM (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that you have to separate the human and the fictionalised human, with something like "based on" the (real) human as the relationship. You have to separate the real and fiction. And I not sure that you would need the relationship expressed in the H -> FH direction. That said, then is each different authors' impression of that fictionalised character the same version or a different version of the FH? Then how would you represent Thomas Cromwell (Q294435) in Hilary Mantel (Q465700)'s Wolf Hall (Q2657795).  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
And how to link the same wikipedia-article to both items? The main purpose of WD is to host interwikilinking, how to achieve this? Sänger (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting question. In my opinion items being an instance of human (Q5) should ideally contain only informations backed up by historical evidences. I think fictionalized human (Q3375731) can be used as a class for humans where scholars widely agree that they existed but where the available information is mainly from unreliable sources (legends or unreliable historical accounts). For those characters it should actually suffice to just make them an instance of fictionalized human (Q3375731) (without making them additionally an instance of human (Q5)). I think that a second item being an instance of human (Q5) (like with historical Jesus (Q51666)) is only needed if there are informations backed up by historical evidence and one would want to model the historical person "behind" the legendary one explicitly.
I would not use fictionalized human (Q3375731) for characters in works of fiction based on a historical person. So Queenie from Blackadder should not be an instance of fictionalized human (Q3375731), but of fictional human (Q15632617). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As to the use of fictionalized human (Q3375731) to deal with constraint violations: I don't think that this is necessary. I see no advantage of adding fictionalized human (Q3375731) to humans over just allowing non-fictional entities as subjects of present in work (P1441). characters (P674) already allows humans as values. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I just had an idea about Wikidata. I think it would be convenient if when you add a spouse to a person, that it automatically gets added for the spouse as well. For example, I recently made the item Eliza Maria Partridge Lyman. I added that she was a spouse of Joseph Smith. It would be nice if she were automatically added as a spouse on Joseph Smith's page too. Does a bot that does this already exist, or is there a reason it doesn't work that way? I'm trying to increase my Wikidata fluency. Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): while it is not quite what you are requesting, the primary reference gadget will usually pick these up and offer them at a point of time as a suggested addition on the spouse. [I don't know the internal working mechanics of the gadget to be more helpful of a timeframe).  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

## New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

## Biodiversity Heritage Library DOI

Hoi, I have a list with publications from the BHL and it includes publications with a DOI, publications that are free to read on the internet. It does include the publication, the article name, the license.. Details like authors may follow. I want to upload this information to Wikidata. Based on the DOI and the title it will easy to add author information at a later date. There are more publications but they are less interesting as they are not available for reading. They can wait until the information s more complete. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC) NB they are 167439 publications.

## Wikidata and Wikipedia vs. Wikisource

Currently Wikisource deletes links to people and places named in the text that is archived there. Do you think identifying people and places in documents is important? Links to Wikipedia and Wikidata are deleted. The argument at Wikisource is that there is no way to determine if the links are correct. The same argument can be used on any Wiki project, but the recourse is always the same, we correct mistakes when they are identified. Here is an example and another example here. --RAN (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

en.wikisource does, there's other policies in other projects. What does it have to do with Wikidata? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
well, this is a matter of wikisource policy. On frwikisource, we don't accept links inside a text either, with very few exceptions, because the aim of wikisource is to provide a text, not to create encyclopedic links. Also, most of our texts are to be exported and read without connection, which renders these links useless AND gives a poor reading experience, because of the formatting of the links... Generally, the contributors who want to add links are wikipedians at heart, and occasionally contribute on wikisource, and do not understand clearly that the aims of wikisource are completely different from wikipedia's...
in any case, this is a matter that should be discussed in the concerned wikisource project. I completely fail to see how links in the text (not in the sidebar) could have anything to do with wikidata... --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
RAN: you misrepresent enWS's linking policy. Wikisources are not an encyclopaedia, a sea of blue links are not as pertinent, though we do have links in our works where relevant, and as appropriate, most definitely from headers. Correct that we do not allow interpretative links in the body. Guidance for enWS is at s:en:WS:Wikilinks; people can discuss the policy and its implications at s:wn:WS:S after reading the guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
And to be specific, there is a section on linking to Wikidata for the headers of works. There would be zero requirement for a reproduced work to have links within the body of the work that point to Wikidata; there is simply no case for it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

## Wikidata weekly summary #287

Wikidata weekly summary #287 Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata