Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

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

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2017/01.





for permissions


for deletions


for deletion

for comment

and imports

a query



A tool to batch upload labels for wikidata items[edit]

Hello everyone, As a part of the data donation of translated place names, I have developed a label upload script which helps translators to batch upload a list of labels in a specific language for Wikidata items.

The tool uses pywikibot. The input is a CSV of wikidata Ids and corresponding translated labels to upload. The tool ensures that no duplicates entries are uploaded in the following manner:

Label in wikidata State Action
Present Matches with translation Doesn't get uploaded
Present Doesn't match with translation Uploaded as an alias (If it translation not present as alias)
Not present Uploaded as label

I would like to thank @YuviPanda: ,@Planemad: and folks on #wikidata, #pywikibot to help me out through this. Would love to hear the thoughts and feedbacks from the community on how this could be more useful to help the community of translators.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amishas157 (talk • contribs) at 13:14, 21 December 2016‎ (UTC).

Teams of countries of the United Kingdom[edit]

Hello. United Kingdom has four constituent parts: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Each part has it own association football federation. (The Football Association (Q9500), Irish Football Association (Q620280), Football Association of Wales (Q275173), Scottish Football Association (Q478320)). Should an English team like Chelsea F.C. (Q9616) has country (P17) fill with England (Q21) or United Kingdom (Q145)? Should a Scottish team like Celtic F.C. (Q19593) has country (P17) fill with Scotland (Q22) or United Kingdom (Q145)? Xaris333 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been using United Kingdom for institutions in any of those, but maybe that's not the right answer in this case (or others)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
country (P17) should only be used with sovereign state, i.e. not with England (Q21) or Scotland (Q22). For sports teams, however, country for sport (P1532) might anyway be a better choice. All administrative territorial entity are allowed values of country for sport (P1532). --Pasleim (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
country (P17) sovereign state of this item
country for sport (P1532) country a person or a team represents when playing a sport (not all teams represents their country, they do not all playing international matches)
country of origin (P495) country of origin of the creative work or subject item
Maybe the last one is the perfect choice.
And now I have just noticed that Centro Social Deportivo Barber (Q1940547) which is a football club in Curaçao (Q25279) (Atlantic Ocean) has country (P17) the Netherlands (Q55). Its obvious that we have a problem here. We are not giving the "correct" information. Xaris333 (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Then the English label of P17 needs to be changed: both England and Scotland are countries, and indeed we describe them as such and list them as instances of Q3336843 (labelled in English as "country of the United Kingdom"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I believe (and constraint approves) that country (P17), country of origin (P495) and country for sport (P1532) should have values of sovereign state (Q3624078). The problem is that in non-English languages England (Q21) is not country (Q6256). You can use qualifier in the administrative territorial entity (P131) for England (Q21). --Infovarius (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The football at England is famous as the English Football and the teams as the English teams. Not as the UK Football and as UK teams. I think we are doing a big mistake... Xaris333 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
And just see what we have now for England national team... and . England national team is not represents UK, only a part of it, England... Am I the only one who see the problems? Xaris333 (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the problem here is that we associates sport teams with nations, and not with what they represents, an organisation. The organisation in the case of English football team is The Football Association (Q9500). And from what I know, UK has more than four teams in UEFA. Also Gibraltar Football Association (Q508376) have a team. And not all football teams in the national leagues of England are located in England. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Swansea City A.F.C. (Q18659) is a team in Wales (Q25) but is taking part to the national leagues of England. And other example: Derry City F.C. (Q459622) is a team in Northern Ireland (Q26). But the team is taking part to competitions in Ireland (Q27). Xaris333 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
And the teams of Liechtenstein (Q347) plays in the Suisse leagues. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
So maybe to change the scope of country for sport (P1532) to "country/organisation"? --Infovarius (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You mean to add the associations? Not the countries? Xaris333 (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Something alike, yes. --Infovarius (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Gibraltar is a "British Overseas Territory"; it is not part of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

How many edits per day?[edit]

We are planning an import of 27 000 items to Wikidata. Each item will have several properties. What is the bot edit limit per day, which we can use to calculate the duration of the import? – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no hard limit. You can edit as fast as you want until you see that the system gets untable by observing the numbers on Special:DispatchStats. If you aren't doing more than one edit per second you are on the safe site. Using the API, you can create an item and add statements in the same edit, so you can basically complete your import in 27 000s. --Pasleim (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Susannaanas: You should first review WD:Bots in case you have not.

@Pasleim: Perhaps that should be added to WD:Bots. --Izno (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Susannaanas: that's a rather large amount of items. What kind of things are we talking about here? Be sure to discus the import itself to make sure it doesn't collide with Wikidata:Notability. Multichill (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The topic has been addressed in this discussion, in the second part regarding elections. We will establish a page for the import and a WikiProject for elections in general also. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Edited 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I completely missed that discussion Susanna.
So you want to create items for 27.000 people who might get elected. That's roughly 0,5% of the entire population (of 5,4M), right? How many of them will actually be elected?
Wikidata is not a data last resting place, data should be used. I doubt that would be the case for these 27K items. I looked at the enwp notability criteria for some guidance. I would limit it to the politicians who got elected. Would that work for you? Multichill (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
As we see it this is an Open Democracy project. The individual candidates are so to speak nodes in the data set that describes the Finnish Municipal Election 2017. This gives a huge value to the data as all candidates will be queried, and thus create a very interesting graph of data.
We plan to query the data, and in those cases it is very important that we have a complete data set. So we can answer questions like the age distribution of candidates in relation to the economic condition of the municipality and political party they represent.
This is linked data rather than encyclopaedic data. And in future election we can see to how large extent candidates are running again, and so forth.
Additionally we at Yle (Finnish Broadcasting Company) use this data for tagging. We will produce web pages for most of the candidates to assist the people’s choice in the election. And in the same spirit we hope this data set can serve the public as open democratic data. And we hope that Wikidata would serve this purpose. Mickhinds (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think citing enwp notability makes any sense. That policy is irrelevant for Wikidata. I think it's good to have high-quality data added to Wikidata. Our criteria is the description by a serious source. The government source about which candidates run fulfills that criteria. The same is true for the Finnish Broadcasting Company.
Wikidata items aren't equivalent to Wikipedia pages. There are Wikipedia article might list a hundred people. If Wikidata wants to store those 100 people every person needs his own item if Wikidata wants to represent the same information as Wikipedia. In this case an election is important enough that the Finish Wikipedia could hosts a link of candidates for various municipal elections.
In the spirit of Open Democracy I also consider this data to be valuable. Wikidata doesn't have anything to gain to be exclusionist in a case like this. ChristianKl (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What World University and School would like to add to Wikidata[edit]

Hi All, (Lydia and Lea),

Nice to chat in the Wikidata office hour just now - .

To begin, CC World University and School would like to add CC MIT OpenCourseWare in its 7 languages and CC Yale OYC to Wikidata.

CC WUaS seeks to accredit on CC MIT OCW in its 7 languages & & to create major universities in all countries' main languages to offer free CC Bachelor, Ph.D., law, M.D. and I.B. high school degrees in all ~200 countries' main and official languages - the "Harvards/MITs/Stanfords of the web". WUaS also seeks to develop in all 7,097 living languages as wiki schools for open teaching and learning.

World University and School's main areas for growth for Wikidata, furthermore, lie in the ~ 10 main areas here -

And WUaS also has another planned wing, which should benefit Wikidata pragmatically, around WUaS's 14 planned revenue streams

How best to begin this process?

Thank you!

All the best, Scott Scott WUaS (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are proposing - you want to add "opencourseware" to wikidata? You mean add items for each course? I suppose that's reasonable. Please bear in mind wikidata is CC-0 (other wikimedia sites have different rules) so in particular no copyrighted material should be placed in wikidata. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes and great - WUaS would like to add CC "opencourseware" to wikidata, and probably items from each course, each course to become a wiki subject page at WUaS, and eventually for translation into each of all 200 countries' main languages, building upon the open licensing of MIT OCW Translated Courses ( . Thanks for the heads' up about CC licensing consistency: MIT OCW is CC 4.0 - ( - so we'd have to work out the licensing further. Scott WUaS (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scott WUaS: What do you mean by "adding opencourseware"? Do you mean adding links to the videos/materials? It would be easier if you would create some test items on , there you can create all the properties that you need and show an example. After that you can propose the missing properties on WD:PP.--Micru (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
@Micru: In addition to adding the main OCW URL, particularly from MIT OCW in its 7 languages (but also Yale OYC), to Wikidata so that each course can appear in each of the Subjects here - - (and also so that any given course can be listed in the top 1/3 section of, for example, the Economics' wiki subject pages (both macro and micro) - - emerging newly in probably MediaWiki), WUaS would also like to explore creating a wiki page for each MIT OCW course, based on the SUBJECT TEMPLATE - - which informs all ~720 WUaS Wikia pages, and also anticipate/plan for translation of MIT OCW into all countries' main languages for credit. This may include adding all the links from any given MIT OCW course, for example, newly to an individual WUaS MIT OCW course page in Wikidata/Mediawiki. Thanks very much for letting me know about which I didn't know about. Could we possibly please develop this together in, since I don't know coding in Wikidata very well? Thank you. Scott WUaS (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scott WUaS: Perhaps it is better that you take a look first at how Wikidata works here: Help:Contents. Then you can see other items and properties to see how it is done. And finally use test wikidata to practice with creating items and properties to model your data.--Micru (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scott WUaS: We don't understand what you want to do and how Wikidata could benefit from this.
I looked around (mail and other place) and you seem to be quite active talking with different people, but that doesn't make clear what you want to achieve.
Let's put it bluntly (Dutch directness): Everyone seems to be very friendly and patient with you, but it seems they're just being polite.
You seem to be wasting our time. You seem to be of good faith, but lacking the wiki competence.
Maybe you should start editing Wikidata so you can experience it and see what is all about. Multichill (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The mission of Wikidata is all knowledge, and multichill: World University donated itself to Wikidata in October 2015 per Lydia and other Wikidatans. (See, too and In World University's knowledge generating mission, and having donated it to Wikidata, and in our CC MIT OCW in 7 languages' centricity, WUaS seeks to create knowledge generating universities and schools in all 8k languages. Building on beginning WUaS in MediaWiki on January 6, 2016, in both English and German (but not in Wikidata at the time), CC WUaS seeks to accredit on MIT OCW in its 7 languages & and Yale OYC to create major wiki universities, and offer free CC degrees, in all countries' main languages. WUaS also seeks to become a growth story for Wikidata. WUaS also has another planned wing, which should benefit Wikidata pragmatically, around WUaS's 14 planned revenue streams - Wikidata, which seeks to be a platform of all knowledge, will further this with World University. WUaS also dovetails with Wikidata's "Welcome" - "Wikidata is a free and open knowledge base that can be read and edited by both humans and machines.Wikidata acts as central storage for the structured data of its Wikimedia sister projects including Wikipedia, Wikivoyage, Wikisource, and others. Wikidata also provides support to many other sites and services beyond just Wikimedia projects! The content of Wikidata is available under a free license, exported using standard formats, and can be interlinked to other open data sets on the linked data web" - for one.
@Micru: Thanks very much. I'll seek to begin building World University and School in to practice creating items and properties to model WUaS's, MIT OCW's and Yale OYC's data. Scott WUaS (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Micru: Tested some WUaS ideas in yesterday, with this course - - for example, and other MIT OCW and Yale OYC. Out of this, reasons furthermore to explore adding MIT OCW in 7 languages and Yale OYC to Wikidata in the future include for translation (e.g. re Content Translation and Google's Zero-Shot) and for other possible reasons. Thanks for letting me know about Scott WUaS (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Scott WUaS:Could you link to the test cases you created? ChristianKl (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Personally, I figured eventually I'd find samples of what WU is so enthusiastic about. Somehow I thought that the impact for Wikidata would be to create items for courses, e.g. elementary typing (Q28148153), except that such course items would be linking to pages outside WMF sites?
    --- Jura 06:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

After testing some WUaS ideas in yesterday, I think that developing MIT OCW with a "front end" in Wikiversity/MediaWiki (with the MIT OCW course description part embedded - in a Wikiversity page) with WUaS's SUBJECT TEMPLATE - 's - bottom two sections using a new kind of WUaS COURSE TEMPLATE newly in Wikiversity/MediaWiki is a good idea (that can also lead to a "course catalog" and "You at WUaS"). By developing MIT OCW-centric World University also in Wikiversity/MediaWiki, there will be many ways to develop items for courses in Wikidata and for Wikiversity/MediaWiki (within the Wikimedia ecosystem/ WMF sites). Scott WUaS (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Scott WUaS: WUaS seems to just be a collection of your bookmarks, plus descriptions that you copied from the targets, plus a lot of repeated content on every page, that you hope will eventually turn into something more. For example:
What exactly is it that you think could be added to, e.g. Spanish (Q1321)? Please be very specific. Multichill (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Multichil: Think of these WUaS wiki pages as CC MIT OCW-centric and CC Yale OYC-centric school templates/blueprints/design plans (planning to develop in Wikiversity/MediaWiki from Wikidata), different from Wikipedia articles.

WUaS is seeking too to develop a WUaS COURSE TEMPLATE (based on in Wikiversity/MediaWiki as "front end" - with 1) "WUaS Idea- and Academic Resources" and 2) "WUaS Navigation" below each MIT OCW course - (e.g. course's main section EMBEDDED in a WUaS Wikiversity/MediaWiki page - and with Wikiversity courses - and also "embedding" CC Yale OYC courses, as well as free MITx/edX courses, if possible), and with each MIT OCW course (in each of all 7 languages) in Wikidata, each with a Wikidata Q-item number as a kind of "back end" (linking all of the sub-URLs on each page).

So, to "be very specific" re your Spanish Wikidata entity question, e.g. Spanish (Q1321), WUaS would not add MIT OCW courses to this page - neither in English - e.g. - nor in Spanish - - but WUaS will likely create a new Q-item entry (if one doesn't already exist) in Wikidata re (with its sub-links) to be added to this school / university, newly in WUaS Spanish language wiki page in Wikiversity/MediaWiki, as well as to an individual course wiki page, for example, to "wikify" both Yale OYC and MIT OCW, both in Wikiversity/MediaWiki and Wikidata, in WUaS wiki subjects as schools/universities. Scott WUaS (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Related CC WUaS developing in CC Wikiversity colloquium emerging here - Scott WUaS (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Could we find a way please to embed "just the course part" from the main, middle "frame" or "cell" from each CC MIT OCW course in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC course in a new WUaS MediaWiki template with these SUBJECT_TEMPLATE resources/section headings ( also in the process creating a new WUaS MediaWiiki COURSE TEMPLATE? Here are two courses as examples - - and - . WUaS would also plan to begin a new Q-item entity for each MIT OCW course and Yale OYC in Wikidata, with each course's sub-links to be added in its Q-item.

MIT OCW's addition to and value for Wikidata, in terms of education, knowledge generation, and technically too, would partly lie with CC WUaS offering free CC university and high school degrees (accrediting on CC MIT OCW and CC Yale OYC) in multiple languages. 

In developing CC WUaS with CC MIT OCW and CC Yale OYC in CC Wikidata, we might also better be able to anticipate further translation of MIT OCW into countries' main languages for accrediting WUaS Bachelor, Ph.D., law and M.D., as well as I.B. high school, degrees in CC WUAS in MediaWiki (rather than with CC Wikiversity). 

I'm writing further about embedding free, highest quality, OpenCourseWare, in general, and particularly about edX, HarvardX and MITx courses. While some edX courses charge money (while offering their courses free at the same time), and WUaS's planned COURSE TEMPLATE probably in MediaWiki wouldn't want to post this, the following HarvardX JuryX course is archived and is free: 

Here's the archived Harvard Law JuryX course with Professor Charles Nesson (which I took this past autumn) - ; its videos with a history of the jury process plus other valuable instructional interviews and resources are still available. How best to plan a COURSE TEMPLATE (again based on, but anticipating similar anomalous OCW courses in terms of free OpenCourseWare in many countries' languages. How to embed this JuryX course, and plan for embedding many different web sites' OCW in many different languages (beyond the CC MIT OCW in 7 languages and CC Yale OYC)?   (And here's the beginning CC World University and School online law school - - planned in all countries' main languages (since the 10 other beginning law schools part way down), accrediting on CC MIT OCW for Bachelor and Ph.D. degrees (before we move into a new wiki emerging from Wikipedia's database, Wikidata in 358 languages). This JuryX course in a WUaS planned COURSE TEMPLATE will probably emerge in these law schools in various languages, as well.  Scott WUaS (talk)

German Wikipedia duplicate[edit]

The items stage magician (Q15855449) and illusionist (Q1658894) seem to be equivalent, however in the German wikipedia there are two pages about the same topic, on of them is a list. Could somebody take a look and see if it is possible to merge both? --Micru (talk) 10:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The topic of illusionist (Q1658894) in German wikipedia seems to me broader than the one of stage magician (Q15855449), as it includes also other artists (e.g. painters of trompe-l'œil (Q468930)). But in the other language versions stage magician (Q15855449) and illusionist (Q1658894) seem to be equivalent to me, too. Maybe we should move the other language versions from illusionist (Q1658894) to stage magician (Q15855449) and make stage magician (Q15855449) a subclass of illusionist (Q1658894)? Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
What to do with "links here" persons? --Infovarius (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are you asking about conflict in de-articles at en-chat and not at Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts? Infovarius (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I had completely forgotten about that page... sorry. You can move the discussion there if you wish.--Micru (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Micru: as one of the pages linked from this item is a disambiguation page, there is a similar problem as at Wikidata:Project_chat#Disambiguation_page_linked_from_film_item.
--- Jura 06:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. So is everyone OK, if I move all article sitelinks from illusionist (Q1658894) to stage magician (Q15855449) and change P106:Q1658894->P106:Q15855449? --Infovarius (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am doing. --Infovarius (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

United States[edit]

I propose changing the English label for United States of America (Q30) to United States, for consistency with the English/Simple article names as well as common usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure this is a good idea. It may well be that "United States" is unambiguous for native English speakers, but there are plenty of non-native speakers who use Wikidata. Consistency with the article names does not seem any kind of argument: plenty of cases where the label is (and must be) entirely different from an article name. - Brya (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It is fine to add an alias but it is the official name. Following the names of any Wikipedia is an extremely bad idea. In many cases there is no proper fit between the article and the item. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: Help:Label indicates that we should use "the smallest unit of information that names an item" even if that unit is ambiguous, and that we should use the most common name - both of those support the change. Further, @GerardM: it indicates that we should consult the corresponding Wikipedia page for guidance on what the most common name is. It doesn't say to use official name at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the Help:Label page is beginning to look a little out of date, but even Help:Label is less strict than you make it appear, to quote:
"Wikimedia page title may give orientation
To figure out the most common name, it is good practice to consult the corresponding Wikimedia project page (for example, the title of a Wikipedia article). In many cases, the best label for an item will either be the title of the corresponding page on a Wikimedia project or a variation of that title. [...]"
Brya (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Any good reason not to do that in this case? The guidance of that page in sum supports "United States" much more strongly than it does "United States of America". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Brya: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are so many instances where the Wikipedia article is just a choice to allow for disambiguation that the notion that it is the best fit is plain wrong in practice. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you raise that general point at Help talk:Label, but in this particular case that is not a concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
We still have United States of Brazil, so that the United States is ambiguous.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: And per Help:Label we resolve potential ambiguity by using the description, not by extending the label. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You're right that we don't have to include disambiguating information in the label, but this isn't just extending the label, "United States of America" is a name in actual use, e.g. on coins, notes, passports, so they're both valid names. Looking at other countries, we're pretty inconsistent in whether we use official names or the common shortened version... - Nikki (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The most common name is what we're meant to be using, which here is "United States". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki: Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: What advantages do you expect to be gained by this change? [Also, please note the section, above, #Nikkimaria, where you were pinged.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

In addition to being more in tune with the guidance for labels, this change would provide advantages for the use of Wikidata on other projects. (Hm, for some reason I did not get that ping...) Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
"The advantages are that it would provide advantages"? Please be more specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It would ensure that data passed through from Wikidata is consistent with the terminology in use on our major English-language projects, to begin with. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to follow the guidance of Help:Label in this case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It is guidance and not every page and every answer fits within general guidance. Present a decent case about why the change is valuable, not ducking and weaving with indirect reference to a page. In this case, I have specifically said to you that people may wish to use the label through the modules. You have not presented a reasoned case about why your change is better, and I dispute your unsubstantiated and personal opinion that it is advantageous. We are talking about the country, not its possessive use, so please don't try the fake and vague "consistency argument." We use United Kingdom for the country, and British for the people, and so on. The country is the United States of America and there are the other regular uses United States, USA, American, ... depending on context of the usage required use away in the aliases.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
(a) Yes, it is guidance, but unless we have good reason to do otherwise we should follow it. (b) And as I've told you, use of the label through the modules is a good reason to use the more common term as the label, as this will avoid having to override the value in multiple locations. "United States" is appropriate in more cases than is "United States of America", on projects that use the former, in templates or tables where space is at a premium, etc. (c) To summarize: Such a change would be in line with the guidance of Help:Label as well as both common usage and the terms in use in our major English-speaking Wikipedias. (d) What are you talking about with "possessive use"? We use "United Kingdom" for the country, not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", because although the latter is the official name the former is the common name.
So now, what is your "reasoned case" for using the less common label, despite the guidance not to and the practical implications of this choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Many people do disagree with you. You insist on something that is imho and in the opinions of others arguably wrong and you get angry when people disagree with you. Why? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not angry, I'm simply asking that you and others provide a reason why following Help:Label and common usage is "arguably wrong". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Internal link fixes[edit]

I just fixed an internal link, which had been entered on Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard as:

and which I changed to:


On most WMF Wikis, this would be regarded as routine housekeeping.

However, I have twice been reverted.

I seek confirmation from the community that such edits, where they in no way change the meaning of the post or section concerned, are acceptable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal opinion:
  • In cases like this one, the style of linking by the original editor could have indicated their level of experience
  • The link was clickable before your “routine housekeeping”, so technically there wasn’t even problem
  • “Fixing” it creates extra load on ~350 watchlists (per info page)
I would recommend to leave these things as they are. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Interesting points. Note that my edit was marked as "minor", so would not effect all watchlists. That aside, would you agree that reverting such an edit also creates extra load on watchlists? What if such edits are made at the same time as another change (like, say, a reply)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Reverts of these fixes aren’t any better—in terms of unnecessary watchlist load. There can be other reasons which sometimes justify a revert, but in this specific case I do not want to judge about the behavior of @Sjoerddebruin. You initially asked about the housekeeping.
  • “Minor edits” can be filtered, but since each user uses this flag a little differently, many users typically also look at minor edits as well. Particularly on important pages such as the Administrator’s noticeboard.
Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Also: marking your edit as minor would hide the page from watchlists during specific settings (like: only show latest change and don't show minor changes). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
And again I wasn't pinged in the initial post, this is unacceptable. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Editing other users comments is almost always a bad idea (the revert is just about automatic). The only user who can judge if such an edit is "acceptable", is the user who made the comment in the first place, and instead of going into harm's way, it easier and more helpful to simply post a suggestion on his Talk page. - Brya (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
As I noted above, "On most WMF Wikis, this would be regarded as routine housekeeping". "Simple and helpful suggestions" are often ignored; like those I've given you multiple times about your broken indenting, which I've once again fixed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Personally I prefer that nobody touches edits of other user in talk pages. You can warn the user but don't modify what the user has wrote (except for vandalism or privacy). --ValterVB (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
„On most WMF Wikis, this would be regarded as routine housekeeping.“ Would be interesting to know on which projects your editing experience is based. --Succu (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This reminds of previous discussions with the same user where they had also been asked not to touch other users comments and proposals prior to archiving them. See notably Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2016/03#Property_creator_rights_of_Pigsonthewing. Apparently they still persist with their problematic approach.
--- Jura 06:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No, Jura. What happened there was that you made a screed of baseless and unsubstantiated (as indeed they still are) ad hominem assertions, including that I routinely removed a certain type of post from my talk page, and my reply to you there was "No Jura, I only remove posts from you on my talk page, and I do so whatever the subject. The reason for that is left as an exercise for the reader. " Nothing, in that regard, has changed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are often many advantages with converting full urls to internal wikilinks (though that is a little less with Special:Contributions). The existing tools like popups has good versatility with internal wikilinks, so in this case hovering over a Special:Contributions link allows you to view the contributions without having to load the page, and often follow links down the popups. That said, unless there is a good reason to change a link, then the courtesy is to leave it; and if reverted for changing, why pick the fight over who is right. At the same time it surprises me those who wish to continue their arguments and pick fights, surely there are better things to do.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging the benefits of fixing such inks, and raising the popups use-case, which I'd overlooked (despite using that tool!). discussing such cases - on evidence, rather than emotion - is how we reach consensus, and develop polices and practices which best serve our mission. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Returning to the subject of fixing links, a section currently near the bottom of this page has a link formatted like:

which renders as:

It serves us far better if the link is formatted as:


so as to render as:

Douglas Adams (Q42)

A link formatted as:

[ Foo]

renders as:


and misleads the reader into thinking it is an external link. Formatting it as:


does not:


Furthermore, bare links do not turn red when the linked item is deleted. Compare:


no label (Q27684138)

In none of these cases does fixing such a link (where the fix does not alter the context of a discussion, such as, say, one like this, about bare links) do anything other than making life easier for our colleagues and readers, and thus improving the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

More excuses for bad manners? --Succu (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems hopeless. How many users have to revert them? Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2016/03#Property_creator_rights_of_Pigsonthewing illustrated that Pigsonthewing edited proposals by other users prior to them being archived leading to the removed parts being replaced with elements that were added by Pigsonthewing on properties themselves. This despite Pigsonthewing being asked not to do so.
At [1] an administrator asked Pigsonthewing: "Please don't edit others messages.". Despite this they reverted the edit once more.
The same reminder had been given to Pigsonthewing before.
--- Jura 22:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You seem intent on derailing this discussion with irrelevances; but I'm sure our colleagues are literate enough to read my refutation of your false allegations, in the original dicussion, to which you conventiently link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you could answer the question above: How many users have to revert you until you stop editing others users comments?
--- Jura 23:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has to revert such changes. The majority of times I've made such changes on this wiki, nobody has reverted me, and nobody has complained. The reasons for this, and why a very small number of people chose to make an issue of it in a minority of cases, are again left as an exercise for the reader. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, if people revert you, why do you keep reverting them? How many times will you be doing that? How would you summarize the feedback received above?
--- Jura 10:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this an alpha male fight? 1) Don't change links unless there is true value. 2) Don't revert unless there is true value. If you are playing the change and revert game to prove a point, there is no point it is facile and a pointless pissing competition.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hidden and open reverts[edit]

At Panarctic Flora ID (P2434) starts his next series of hidden and open reverts. He is declaring that our property part of (P361) the database Panarctic Flora (Q28064236) what looks doubtful to me. --Succu (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't "started" anything of the kind. Get the beam out of your own eye, and stop trying to derail this discussion of internal link fixes with irrelevancies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It's related to your manners to fight a "discussion" and not argue at it. --Succu (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Like I said: Get the beam out of your own eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Citing Matthew 7:5 (Q16146509)? Wow. --Succu (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of P560 for things other than cardinal directions[edit]

I've seen direction (P560) used on a lot of railway station items as a qualifier to indicate the terminus of the line or service for adjacent station (P197). Shouldn't those use destination point (P1444) instead? (If yes, would it be possible for a bot to modify all uses of P560 used as a qualifier (for P197), with the value being an item which is an instance of station (Q719456) or its subclasses, to use this property?) Jc86035 (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless there is only one more station/terminal in a certain direction, each passenger will have his or her own destination in mind. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: I was assuming that the destination point would be referring to the vehicle's/line's and not the passengers'. Maybe it might be better to create a new property? Jc86035 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: Or should the cardinal directions use direction relative to location (P654)? Jc86035 (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the property proposal for direction relative to location (P654), I get the idea that the situation where direction relative to location (P654) might be used is if an adjacent station property is provided, but the name of the adjacent station is obscure, so it is desired to state its relationship to a better-known landmark. So one might enter in the Rutland (Q2373537) Amtrack station that the adjacent station is Castleton (Q5050630), and add a direction relative to location (P654) qualifier to indicate that the Castleton (Q5050630) station is east of Castleton State College (Q1049687). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: Ah, I see. I think I misunderstood the meaning of the property. direction (P560) is still only supposed to be used for the 16 cardinal and intercardinal directions (some violations), so I think it could be replaced by terminus (P559) for values which are railway stations? Jc86035 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't really understand what you're getting at without a complete example, but I have edited Ethan Allen Express (Q254597) to add the two termini using terminus (P559). I believe Ethan Allen Express (Q254597) now illustrates the correct use of terminus (P559). Jc3s5h (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: For clarity:
  • Item Hung Hom Station (Q996591), an intercity/metro station, has several uses of the adjacent station property.
  • Before several edits in November 2016 by Mahir256, the "direction" qualifier for each of the adjacent stations was "north", "west" or another cardinal direction.
  • The edits changed the qualifier to use values such as "Lo Wu Station" and "Tuen Mun Station", which are violations of the constraints of the "direction" property as they're not cardinal or intercardinal directions.
  • Both actual directions and railway stations are therefore used inconsistently in the property as qualifier, and it would probably be better to use another property for the railway stations.
Hope this helps. Jc86035 (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for the problems that have been caused by my edits: direction (P560) was the closest property that I could find for this purpose, especially since the way I used it matched the existing infoboxes for those stations most closely and no constraint violations occurred while using it. Although it seems most expedient to me to repurpose destination point (P1444) for non-event items, I think a new property 'towards' is definitely in order (one which could also apply for highway exits and interchanges). Mahir256 (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: I originally planned to submit a property proposal (I have it on my computer), but I thought that one of the existing properties would suffice. Should I post the proposal? Jc86035 (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You may as well submit the proposal to see whether there's any consensus to formally change the scope of another existing property. (I also recognize, judging from the results of your query, that I am far from the first person to use direction (P560) the way I have.) Mahir256 (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Added at Wikidata:Property proposal/towards. Jc86035 (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Petscan should have an option to add description[edit]

AFter doing a bunch of Petscans, I think the application should be able to add descriptions as well, as an option. MechQuester (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, maybe quick statements could be merged to PetScan? Now you can add descriptions using the quick statements tool. --Stryn (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you could try this new Descriptioner tool which uses SPARQL. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I had used quick statements and that it could be integrated into petscan. It would be a bit convienient. MechQuester (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
When you compare this to the existing tool by Magnus to create automated descriptions, it is pathetic. Try this for instance. Just add some statements like what it is and it will change... PERFECT. I wonder all these years why people bother adding descriptions. Static descriptions suck big time. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Reasonator does not even edit descriptions. MechQuester (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The descriptions it creates are not saved but they are at least useful and they change for the better when you add relevant statements. They are also available in other languages. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Descriptions are useful as for the stuff upon which I am working that there is often insufficient information to identify the object or to suitably differentiate. I alos find them lag significantly compared to static descriptions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I use automated descriptions to disambiguate; I add statements and thereby understand what is what. The problem with static descriptions is that they are often wrong and do not get updated. This is where automated descriptions shine. They work in any language. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
What I don't like with automated descriptions is, that they don't work in any language. For example, the German automated description of May Andersen (Q436251) is "Dänische Modelin (*1982) ♀" [2]. That are three grammar mistakes in this short phrase. Automated descriptions are okay for reasonator but they are not ready to be displayed on Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a matter of improving the scripts for automated descriptions. Perhaps with the the Wiktionary support it will be even easier to conjugate. When you state that it is not ready for Wikidata, do understand that the quality of manual descriptions remains substandard. The question is what is more important. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Then can we make the personal display type preferential through gadgets?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: Try this, for example. Do you still feel happy with automated descriptions? --Infovarius (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I cannot read Cyrillic but it is much better than a number. The descriptions are shown to me in English and there is little for me in there. That is not a problem. When someone starts adding values to these items the descriptions will change. So I am happy with it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Would the creators of Petscan work on integrating Descriptioner? Both together would be nice MechQuester (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

+1 to MechQuesters suggestion! @Matěj Suchánek: except that some of us just crap at SPARQL! Whereas Petscan allows the reasonable search and results, plus it is easy to modify a query and to have it permanent. For example, when I am adding a series of biographical articles from a biographical dictionary at English Wikisource, Petscan is perfect to generate a list of works, however, at that point I am stymied. Now if Petscan gave me a query to plug into Descriptioner then it may be somewhat less painful (and a learning exercise), however, at this point NA-AH!  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it would be the least amount of coding for the tool maintainers if Descriptioner could take as an input a pagepile (which is a possible output of petscan) besides SPARQL Wesalius (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Or @Wesalius: Petscan generates a SPARQL query to plug into descriptioner.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah SPARQL is like programming and needs a bit of learning curve and not all can learn code. It would be great if both could work together. MechQuester (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

P155 and P156[edit]

Why follows (P155) and followed by (P156) can only can only be used as a qualifier (Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist). They are properties that can be use as properties. Xaris333 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

(Relevant discussion.) Can you give an example where non-qualifier use would make sense? --Yair rand (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Years, such as 2016 (Q25245). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2016 (Q25245) is an instance of year (Q577), leap year (Q19828) and leap year starting on Friday (Q217036). If the property follows (P155) is not used as qualifier, the meaning is ambiguous. Does it refer to the prior year, prior leap year or prior leap year starting on a Friday? --Pasleim (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair point. So how should 2016 (Q25245) be changed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Pasleim's changes to the item are appropriate, although calendar year (Q3186692) seems more appropriate than year (Q577). I do wonder, though, how or whether the Julian and the Gregorian years should be accounted for in the same item (for example, 2016 (Q25245) having a different start time (P580) of '1 Jan 2016' in the Gregorian and '14 Jan 2016' in the Julian). Mahir256 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: I was trying to make this clear in the case of Gregorian calendar days. Mahir256 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
2016–17 Premier League (Q23009701) --> follows (P155) --> 2015–16 Premier League (Q19346732) Xaris333 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: which is only true within the _scope_ of "premier league season", but not in terms soccer tournaments. To follow it has to have some scope, and if it has scope than it is a qualifier. 2017 Australian Open tournament follows ... 1) 2016 Australian Open; 2) the 2017 Sydney International; 3) 2016 US Open.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
How do you suggest to show the next item (the next season) of an item? Xaris333 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
instance of (P31) sports season (Q1539532) with qualifiers (part of (P361), maybe?) Premier League (Q9448) and appropriate follows (P155) and followed by (P156) qualifiers. (You may wish to create an item "Premier League season" and use this for instance of (P31) instead.) Mahir256 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
instance of (P31) is the identity of an item. Why do you want to add things about the identity of an item as a qualifier instead of a statement? And why this special case for these?
If you do insist on having it as a qualifier, I don't think instance of (P31) is the right location to put it. I would say 2014: series (P179) -> "The sequence of all years" and add it as a qualifier to that one. Multichill (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Short answer: because "next" and "previous" have sense only in some sequence, and each entity can belong to several sequences. instance of (P31) marks those sequences. P.S. There was some time ago an idea to mark sequences as a P31-qualifier to follows (P155)/followed by (P156) which can be regarded as an alternative. Infovarius (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So many properties with incorrect use, so many similar items which different properties for the same topic... :( Xaris333 (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's improve them together! :) Infovarius (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to find the correct properties for football (and sports items in general) and is really difficult. We must decide if items like Premier League season is the solution. I have a similar discussion Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/12#Which one. I have created series of Ligue 1 (Q27927008). Is that the solution? Can you give me an example how to use P155 and P156? It will be better for everyone if we decided what statements a sport season can have. Maybe is good to created page-guides from different things per subject. For example, a guide for a country item etc Xaris333 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
+1 to building some guiding help pages that cover these matters. I had hoped that the Projects were going to do them. There has been some work on the showcases, so maybe building a good list of showcases (AND MAKING IT FINDABLE) might also be useful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Social Networks Archival Context data donation[edit]

I have secured another bulk data donation, courtesy of the University of Virginia: 128K of Social Networks Archival Context IDs, matched to Wikipedia articles, for Social Networks and Archival Context ID (P3430). Magnus is kindly uploading these as I speak. This will obviously take a while.

I've also enquired about any unmatched IDs that they might have, that we can work on in Mix'n'Match. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@YULdigitalpreservation: FYI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Thank you for getting the data donation. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like these are all now imported. Thanks, Magnus! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Region of origin[edit]

The cheese mozzarella (Q14088)'s country of origin (P495) is Italy (Q38).

But how to express that the cheese Capra sarda (Q19621602)'s region of origin is Sardinia (Q1462)?

Is location of final assembly (P1071) the way to go?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Syced: It seems that it would be appropriate for you to propose a more general property "place of origin". After that we can see if we keep or migrate "country of origin".--Micru (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Capra sarda (Q19621602) is currently listed as an instance of both a cheese and a mammal. It appears that the latter was the intention of its creator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
would place of origin be a subset or on par with country of origin? MechQuester (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
country of origin (P495) is used for creative works, and if it were migrated to "P:Region of origin" I think that would not be appropiated. With cheese and stuff like that I see no that problem with regionalising. So, if a new property is really needed... I would migrate the part "or subject item" on the English description "country of origin of the creative work or subject item" and I'd keep P495 only for creative works (i. e. country where that book/edition/newspaper was published). Strakhov (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@MechQuester: "country of origin" would be a subproperty of "place of origin".
@Strakhov: "country of origin" has labels in around 87 languages and it is used thousands of items, it wouldn't be easy to change the scope of the property. Besides there has been complaints about its lack of usefulness in the context of publications.--Micru (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
How about indigenous to (P2341)? --Infovarius (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Property for MPs[edit]

I point out Talk:Q20113710. We are discussing if we must use Property:P2124 or Property:P1410 to indicate the number of MPs of a european parliamentary group.--Caarl 95 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

number of representatives in an organization/legislature (P1410) seems better to me. As well as presumably existing exactly for this case, other parliamentary groups have seats within more than one legislature, so it's useful to scope it like this. --Oravrattas (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Properties for naming married women[edit]

Just seeking feedback on the process for naming married women, I cannot find a good example in our help text. So what I have been doing is ...

  1. add birth name
  2. add first name(s), qualify with series ordinal as required, and preferred rank, if not first used is not preference
  3. add birth family name, qualify series ordinal: 1
  4. add married family name, qualify series ordinal: 2
  5. depending on how known after marriage, add preferred rank (usually to married name for period where I am working.)

Example at Georgia Wood Pangborn (Q20739165). Improvements for suggestion? Anyone feel that it is inappropriate?  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Qualifers can be start time (P580)/end time (P582). --Infovarius (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst:, like @Infovarius: said, we usually add (when we can) start time (P580)/end time (P582) as qualifiers for married names. I also use has cause (P828): marriage (Q8445) as a qualifier. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Petscan interwiki now set for developed queries[edit]

To let people know that I have reconfigured the interwiki for Petscan so that the default includes ?psid=, so something like petscan:550574 can be used as permanent shortcuts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

how would this affect Petscan? MechQuester (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Affect? It cannot. Special:Interwiki is a a means to provide standard and easy/ier links. In this case it works in the limited case of psid, though that can be valuable in numbers of situations; as with all the other use of interwikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


How do I indicate using a qualifier that an award has been awarded posthumously. Instance of what I find as an example is imho wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have still gone for "point in time", and ultimately with a reference.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi everybody. We works on the development of the Module:Cycling race in around twenty languages. This permits to display tables and infobox in different Wikipedias always with the same line of code. I already know these properties ISO 9:1995 (P2183) and Revised Hepburn romanization (P2125), they work very well and they work in one sense. My questions are : have we similar properties that permits to translate an alphabet in another ? If we lack of properties, can somebody explain me names or norms to launch properties proposal ?

We have started development in russian, japanese, macedonian and latvian. My wish is to continue with chinese and hindi. For functions as generalclassification and listofteams, we have an interest to use translitterated team names. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a generic propriety for transliterations: transliteration (P2440), but more precise proprieties like Revised Hepburn romanization (P2125) would be more than welcome. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
transliteration (P2440) has the subproperties pinyin transliteration (P1721), McCune-Reischauer romanization (P1942), Revised Romanisation (P2001), Revised Hepburn romanization (P2125), Georgian national system of romanization (P2126), Hungarian-style transcription (P2719) --Pasleim (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Transliteration is problematic. They are often language specific. This means that it is not possible to have rules that are always useable. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. I finally have found en:List of ISO romanizations but I want the contrary of romanizations. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: I don`t quite understand your question, but in Macedonian doesn`t exist transliteration, and we have to transcribe every foreign name with specific rules for every language according our Institute for Macedonian Language (Regulatory language body). On example your user name on Macedonian will be „Жереми-Гинтер-Хајнц-Јеник“, and will include both rules for French and German language. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ehrlich91: so can we imagine a property transcription according the Institute for Macedonian Language (similar in its principles with Hungarian-style transcription (P2719)) would be correct ? Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: But, name of the item is already written according that, I don`t see why to use specific property. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Names of the teams change along the seasons, see UAE Abu Dhabi (Q135837). Sometimes, the name change during a season like Orica-Scott (Q266770). So we need to associate the transcription at values of official name (P1448). When a team change its name, we add in latin caracters a new value (with date). You on your Wikipedia will have this value until you add a transcription. And because we will have a day numerous languages to translitterate/transcript I hope, we need to make the difference between them to permit the algorithm to give you good values. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC) @Ehrlich91: Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: I know that, but still I don`t quite understand why to use transliteration and to add separate properties, when you should make just to update your articles. Personally, I tend to update every single article that I created, so your proposal for me is not adding something new, instead it gives me more work to do. Additionally, transliteration don`t exist in my language. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ehrlich91: It is difficult to explain for me : Sky (Q200009) is Скај for you since its creation in 2010. But for Orica-Scott (Q266770) the name change during seasons. So to display correctly your functions about infoboxes, classifications and listofteams, with the transcription in macedonian, we need to have a property to add as qualifier. If the team change again its name, we enter a value in latin language, a start time (P580), and you and other users that use other alphabets you will add a value as qualifier when you see on your articles you have a team name in latin alphabet. It is a step forward in the adaptation of the algorithm in different languages. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia RfC on Wikidata planned[edit]

Colleagues my wish to read, or participate in discussion at, en:Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs.

It opens:

This page is intended as a preparation for a site-wide RfC about the role of Wikidata on enwiki. Before such an RfC can be had, it seems like a good idea to list a few things here. The section on "uses" should be pretty straightforward: the sections on benefits and disadvantages should be somewhat factual (no "I love it" or "I hate it"), but not necessarily 100% objective

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

well they fully protected the page, so i guess they do not want my input, but they can discuss among themselves. yet more drama, after the translation extension. Slowking4 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
What saddens me about this kind of debate is that there is actually a bias : there is an elite that takes things in hand, but for them the opinion of the contributors who are discreet and do a huge job in their corner does not matter. The correct course of action would be to see property by property what can be done and make it work perfectly well. And when they are shown examples to support that they do not have the manpower needed to make their updates, they evade the remark ... Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The worst part, imho, is the "community fork" that seem to be implied by some proposition. For example the impression that "they" made efforts to be welcoming and that "we" did not is kind of depressing. author  TomT0m / talk page
the lack of self awareness is troubling. one is the same admin who said "basically we don't care what they do on other wikis" (except now when it visibly impacts english wiki). hard to know how to get them to work backlogs with teams, rather than blocks. Slowking4 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
About interwikilinking : if someone can add the project WD:XLINK as an alternative to allowing redirects, I'd be forever beholden. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seen this. Do you know why it pop-ups know ? We're finally done with the frwiki decision and ... yet another round. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Importing lists of repositories from Wikispecies[edit]

What do folk consider the best way to match, or import, the lists of repositories at:

We need to avoid creating duplicates of existing items, add the short codes as aliases, and check that we're linking to the correct repository, not its parent institution. The Wikidata IDs then need to be written back to the tables in Wikidata, adding the column where required.

Note that a parent category of individual repository-categories, also exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's editsery 15:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Circeus: Could you say something to this --Succu (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Magnus has kindly loaded these into Mix'n'Match: [3]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Another way to help is to have a look at Wikidata:Database_reports/items_without_claims_categories/specieswiki. --Succu (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem of duplicates and "collections" not matching "institutions" remain as omnipresent as they were when I commented on this issue back in september. If anything, they are worse with the old list, which contains even more duplicate or obsolete acronyms than the category/individual pages. Circeus (talk)

Petscan not working on some entries[edit]

What prevents pet scan from working on entries? w:Devon Hughes for example is a redirect that keeps popping up and doesn't process at all. What gives? Is this a bug? or something? MechQuester (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@MechQuester: Old data would be my guess. There was a wikidata item with a redirect to that page, and I removed the item in the past week or so by merging. See if it is the old item, or the actual item with the interwiki. Without seeing your data/query/... you are otherwise making us guess and wave our hands at the undefined. That is to say, don't use Devon Hughes (Q12333334), instead use Devon Hughes (Q1209452)  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. I thank you Billinghurst (talkcontribslogs). MechQuester (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Importing "Data licence Germany" Licensed Data[edit]

Am I allowed to import data from reports licensed under the Data licence Germany? While the license is obviously not compatible with CC0 I am unsure as to how much the facts themselves are actually protected by copyright law.

My idea would be to add population data from this report. Assuming that none of the introduction texts and other details of the presentation are reused can this legally be imported into wikidata?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by $DATA (talk • contribs) at 00:43, 13 January 2017‎ (UTC).

I'm not sure that anyone can tell you for sure. The main problem is that it is potentially covered by EU database rights (see meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights and en:Database Directive) because it is a German source. The license they use does say that you can merge their data with other datasets (which I would interpret as waiving the database rights) but it also says that you have to attribute them - there is nothing to suggest that the database rights have been waived if the terms of the license haven't been met. On the other hand, it's not clear if database rights would apply (the second page I linked says that there needs to be "substantial investment") and it's also not clear whether you would be using a "substantial part" of the data. (Of course, what I say is my opinion and should not be taken as legal advice, I have no real understanding of how all this works) - Nikki (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


It became clear from discussions at enwp that many Wikidata pages are giving a person's occupation as linguist when this is unlikely to be appropriate.[4][5][6] Here is one example. Is this simply a problem of the term "linguist" in English being somewhat ambiguous or Wikidata's definition of "occupation" being unclear? Continuing with Kazimiera Zawistowska as an example, how did the classification arise? (I have now removed it). Can I tell its source? In en:Kazimiera Zawistowska the term "linguist" does not and did not occur at all. Maybe in other languages? There seem to have been thousands of such edits in a huge batch in December 2013 and many of them may be wrong. Should they be reviewed or undone? It may be a case where no information is better than wrong information. In a few cases where the enwp article had a (mistaken) category of "linguist" I have removed it.[7] Would some (semi-)automated process have updated Wikidata accordingly? Finally, is this the right forum to be raising issues like this? Thincat (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way to resolve this is to start adding references to claims and removing those without references. —Wylve (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Mmm. There are thousands without references and personally I have no ability to remove, still less to reference, these. Thincat (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed your previous discussions on this in detail, but my guess from a brief overview is you probably need a bot to do some cleanup here, so it might be good to post a specific detailed request of what needs to be done at Wikidata:Bot requests. Wikidata items should describe single concepts independent of language, and linguist (Q14467526) and translator (Q333634) are definitely two different concept; wrong statements should be corrected or at least removed. If the occupation (P106) statements for linguist (Q14467526) have a source other than "imported from * wikipedia" they should be preserved or at least examined by a person rather than modified by a bot. And yes this is a great place to ask a question like this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Can we tell whether diff imported from enwp (or any other wp)? To me it simply appears out of the blue. Thincat (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You could ask @GerardM: but there was apparently no reference attached to the claim, so it had no documented source - feel free to remove such statements (as you just did). ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
These are some more items with occupation (P106)=linguist (Q14467526), no source and a link to English Wikipedia without categorized in en:Category:Linguists --Pasleim (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to get an idea of the error rate. I considered 264 women claimed on Wikidata to have an occupation of linguist. 112 had no enwp article so I did no further assessment. For 70 the Wikidata description claimed they were a linguist, philologist, etc so I accepted this as confirming their status. I checked the enwp articles for the remaining 82 people and decided that in 60 cases they were not in fact linguists. I did not go to original sources or look at other language wikipedias so I would not have realised if an enwp article was simply failing to report that they were linguists. In three cases enwp had been placing them in a category linguists but I considered (based on the text) this was incorrect and so removed the category. In these cases there was no transfer error over to Wikidata but there was nonetheless a classification error. So, I suggest that 57 out of 152 people were wrongly classified. Very roughly 37% Thincat (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Usual for GerardM :) As he was importing bulk from some trash Wikipedias. --Infovarius (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

AutoHotkey for Windows[edit]

AutoHotkey (AHK) is a free, open utility for Windows, that automates actions such as typing a particular string; or opening a programme or website. We've started to compile some example scripts for using it with Wikipedia and sister projects, at en:Wikipedia:AutoHotkey. If you have any AHK scripts that are useful when editing Wikidata, please share them there, or in a comment here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Season of a league and a cup[edit]

Continue from Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/01#Season of a league and a cup.

Now we have season of (P3450) that solve the problem. So we have

2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304) season of (P3450) Cypriot First Division (Q155965)

My question is about instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279). Sould we use

2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304) instance of (P31) sports season (Q1539532) and

2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304) instance of (P31) Cypriot First Division (Q155965)

I think that the first is enough.

And what about

2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304) subclass of (P279) Cypriot First Division (Q155965) ? Do we need that property to these kind of item?

Xaris333 (talk) 10:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Now that there is a dedicated property, let's use that (first one, in your numbering). No P279 either.
    --- Jura 10:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're kidding ? I did no even had the time to notice this proposition and it's already done ? author  TomT0m / talk page 11:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Considering I participated in a discussion on project chat recently considering this question and that I don't remember beeing even notified - correct me if that wrong - that there was a creation, that I was in favor of another solution, I totally feel bypassed here and I'm utterly unsatisfied of what happened here. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Ok. You are right. I am really sorry. Lets discuss it. Xaris333 (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I guess one fundamental problem is "what is a league" ? Is it an organisation ? a type of competition ? author  TomT0m / talk page 12:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@TomT0m: According to [8] Wiktionary is an organization. Wikipedia says that sometimes is consider as an organization and sometimes as a competition. w:Sports league#Terminology. In my opinion sport league is either a competition or a group of competitions. At w:Premier League says that "The Premier League is a corporation in which the 20 member clubs act as shareholders. Seasons run from August to May." Xaris333 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Then my view would be : there is a class of competitions like "top level championship" and that "premier league championship" is a subclass of it. All instances of "premier league championship" are organized by the "Premier league" organization. I think this model definitely semantically works. On the other hand "season of" is a lot more fuzzy and do not really explain the nature of the relationships. This does not play well with the organization and competition concept imho. Could we express the relationships beetween the more basics properties "organized by" and "subclass of" ? I don't really thinks so. This hides a lot of informations that are left implicit and are only found in wiktionary or in the wikipedia articles as a consequence ... imho this is bad. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
So, what do you suggest to use? Xaris333 (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: I'd propose to drop the "sport season" concept for a start, which is ill defined - if at all - and problematic, as I said previously.
I'd also propose to make clear that leagues items are about organizations and to create items for the types of competitions it organizes : have one items for "premier league championship" and one for "premier league organisation" adding the following claims :
  • < "Premier league championship" > subclass of (P279) See with SQID < top level national football championship >
    ... subtype of "football competition" and whats necessary for what we want to do
  • < "Premier league championship" > has quality (P1552) See with SQID < values in qualifier >
    organized by search < "Premier league organization" >
  • and just for the specific competitions :
    < Premier league 2016 2017 > instance of (P31) See with SQID < Premier league championship >
What do you think ? author  TomT0m / talk page 14:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@TomT0m: But some championships are organized by associations like Cyprus Football Association (Q473248). And what about the cup seasons? Xaris333 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
<quote>But some championships are organized by associations like Cyprus Football Association (Q473248)</quote>
  • Is then just the league a part of the association ? This seems like a non problem for me. What exactly would be the problem to model this my way ?
  • The cup seasons are competitions as well, aren't they ? No problem for my model, just create items for those classes of competitions. Actually it seems they already exists, see Coupe de France (Q212412) View with Reasonator See with SQID. This class of competitions is a subclass of football cup as well, and has an organizer as well : French Football Federation (Q244750) View with Reasonator See with SQID. Cups have specific instances : 2012–13 Coupe de France (Q1137518) View with Reasonator See with SQID is for example a concrete instance of french football cup. We don't need the cumbersome concept of a "season" for stuffs that are essentially competitions. My model works well for all of those. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The new property doesn't imply anything about the organizers. As for the rest, it seems you suggested the same earlier (before the property proposal, here on project chat as well). Besides, if you look at the sample, you will notice that there is much less implicit than in your version. This makes it easier to maintain (at least for those actually doing it).
--- Jura 16:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The only thing I can answer to this is "I don't agree". author  TomT0m / talk page 16:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I give up. We will never find a solution. Everyone will continue add any statement he/she wants. The mess will continue. Xaris333 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It can be hard sometime to reach a consensus, for sure. I can give you my POV on what is a good model and why I propose this : it's good to have a few concepts and principle on top of which we can reason to define what Wikidata model should be. Mine are : don't create a property when it's not necessary - it's easier to learn and reuse consistently a few existing concepts than to reinvent the wheel on any field in the universe. This allows not to redo the same discussion over and over and repeating the same mistakes everywhere. Base ourself on elsewhere widely used concepts like classes - collection of objects sharing the same properties - use existing concepts and try to fit with external definitions. Use the concepts that are conceptually clear.
That's the spirit of my proposal above. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you could provide a few diffs to relevant edits of yours identifying seasons and applying the relevant league. This way we can check how your wheels turn. Merely by spirit, it isn't going to happen. As far as I'm concerned, the property was created following the our process and unless one decides to delete it, it's there to be used.
--- Jura 18:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm unconfortable with your comment since we quited the reasoning part of the discussion and we entered a more personal and/or politics side : you're in favor of a do-ocraty, I know this. This does not make my arguments wrong. Plus if I'm correct you were the one creating this property so maybe it's a conflict ... author  TomT0m / talk page 19:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

What does season of (P3450) actually achieve? It would be good if we design and agree upon the full thing and then propose new properties if required. Also since there is no tagging system it would be a good idea to put a note on football related discussions happening in Project Chat in Wikidata:WikiProject Association football.

Previously I had made a suggestion - A Football Season structure - instance/subclass/part of which didn't get consensus but didn't see any disagreements either -- Unnited meta (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


I help to create an new item please help me --White Gold AJ Gaspar (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've left a note on your talk page, with links to tutorials and help pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Date conversion (regex?) needed[edit]

Please could somebody provide a pair of regexes (for a find and replace operation) to any and all dates in the format 27 October 1942 (of which I have many, in a TSV), and to return them in the format used by QuickStatements (i.e. +1942-10-27T00:00:00Z/9. A formula for LibreOffice spreadsheets, or Google Sheets, would also work. Or, alternatively, is there an online tool to do that, in bulk?

Perhaps we could start a page with that and other useful conversions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of regexes strongly depends on the software in which they are used and the data which they are applied on, so it is quite difficult to provide a perfect answer. I would just do the following: open the TSV file in a powerful plain text editor (such as Notepad++ in case of a Windows machine), replace all month names by their numerical representation individually (October => 10, no regexes needed if performed twelve times), and then do a simple regex replacement such as (\d\d) (\d\d) (\d\d\d\d)+\3-\2-\1T00:00:00Z\\9. This entire reshaping process takes less than two minutes if performed correctly, so if you need (considerably) more time you’d need to ask for instructions again… ;-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Thank you; that's the kind of thing I meant, but it doesn't catch single-digit dates like 8 December 2016 (8 12 2016). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see, this was not clear to me. Alter the search string of the regex-replacement to (\d?\d) (\d\d) (\d\d\d\d) (just one extra ?) and do the conversion with the same replace-string as before. The single-digit days need to be fixed now by an additional step: regex-replace (\+\d\d\d\d\-\d\d\-)(\dT00:00:00Z\\9) with \10\2 (all Notepad++-notation). This just adds the missing 0 at the right place. —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If you have a set or a range of digits, often a regex like \d{4} for four in a row and \d{1,2} will find single or double. Often it makes regexes simpler to read without having to count all the \d. I like David Child's regex cheat sheet.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Good answers here already, I would like to add that for constructings regexes there are very useful services such as which can show you live on your dataset what will be captured. If you can fit with your dataset in their limit, you can directly use the service for the formatting. Wesalius (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Importing data from Wikipedia template[edit]


1) A template in Wikipedia has the official name (P1448) of an item. How can I import that data to Wikidata item? It is a monolingual text and you have to put the language.

2) A template in Wikipedia has the color (P462) of an item. I know how to import that data if is only one color in the template [9]. If the colors are more that one, is importing only the first one. Furthermore, if the parameter has an image in front of the colors, it is not importing anything.

Xaris333 (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

1) You have to know the language if you want to import the text. If there is no way to fetch it, then there is no way to import the whole datavalue. None of the automated importing tools that I know can import monolingual text.
2) This is a common limitation for most automated importing tools.
Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know the language :) So, no tool to help me... Thanks for your response. Xaris333 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge request[edit]

Can the entries Template:Plume (Q20736171) and Template:Plume (Q13455439) be merged? They represent the same template.--Auric (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed and ✓ Done. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
See also: Help:Merge.
--- Jura 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Badge for templates that can work with Wikidata only?[edit]

To make it easier to find such templates, how about creating a badge that could be added to templates that can work with Wikidata only?
--- Jura 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Wikidata only"? It has become a practise on svwiki that all Wikidata-supported templates have to have an option to override the content that can be found on Wikidata. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I mean templates that can be used without the need to fill-in data locally. Obviously, they still could do that, but don't have to.
--- Jura 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to give an example: no label (Q27999440). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the badge could be on the following sitelinks: cs:Šablona:Části české obce, cs:Šablona:Infobox - osoba, sv:Mall:Faktamall film WD.
--- Jura 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, I support this. Wesalius (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Templates in hyWP, that can be used without the need to fill, but usually include a local non-free image or filled line(s), if it poorly or not supported or if poorly filled in WD: Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Գիտնական, Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Թեյ, Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Ծրագիր, Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Ծրագրավորման լեզու, Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Ծրագրավորման լեզու, Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Դպրոց, Կաղապար:Տեղեկաքարտ Դրոշ and many others. - Kareyac (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As Innocent bystander intimated, the name "Wikidata only" badge could be confusing<->misleading<->misinsterpreted, if we are talking about templates that do require not addition of parameters. So if you are asking about templates that are Wikidata-ready, Wikidata-configured, Wikidata-driven, Wikidata-full for "all" parameters of the template, like Template:Authority control which can be populated completely from WD, then YES, that is fine. If we are talking about partial population, ie. some WD, some manual, then not with that criteria; though we may wish to consider "Wikidata-partial" after we have evaluated the initial proposal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Never married persons[edit]

Today there was an edit war on Franz Kafka (Q905) who is known for not having got married. Users Rodejong and Villy Fink Isaksen repeatedly changed spouse (P26): no value to unmarried (Q28341938). The page is now protected to stop warring and to make clear whether the use of no value is correct for people who never got married. Note that unmarried (Q28341938) is propably duplicate of never married (Q22101595) which does have several uses. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I can add that the removing of the claim spouse (P26): no value probably was because of an infobox template at Danish Wikipedia which cannot handle the value no value. But nevertheless this seems like a case of exactly what that value was made for. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The matter of the infobox is irrelevant for this discussion though Dipsacus fullonum, and the issue has been solved. However "no value" is needlesly ambiguous, using the "unmarried"/"never married" is a more logical choice. If a property to an item is added it stands to reason it must be filled, otherwise it has no purpose other than to create confusion. -- Vrenak (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless you can tell us the date Kafka married an entity called "unmarried", and source that, then "no value" is correct. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@Vrenak: Yes, a claim must have a value, but no value and also unknown value are perfectly fine values. unmarried (Q28341938) or never married (Q22101595) aren't good values because you would think that if the value is an item, it will represent an actual spouse. Best regards, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Kafka has to marry another person for the property to make sense. Just look at the constraints of spouse (P26) and see if they make sense for never married (Q22101595) :
Allows a start time (P580), end time (P582), place of marriage (P2842). How can we fill those?
Koxinga (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Bad constraints are never a reason to fudge data. Fix the constraints. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Constraints also illustrate what kind of data is expected. Anyway, you agree with me above, so I am not sure what is your logic here. Koxinga (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In this case, personally I'd favor "novalue" as well. I added a few when working on Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P26.
Maybe we should find a way to store the item that contains the textual description of novalue.
--- Jura 21:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Dipsacus fullonum, "no value" is not a value, your logic is flawed, "no value" literally means there is no value, not even a zero. So if you have a claim you need to fill it out with a value, if there is no regular value to fill in you have a zero value for the claim, for spouses this can be unmarried or widowed, depending on context, similarly you can't have a location with "no value" inhabitants, it can have "0" but it can't have "no value". logically if you want to have a claim it must be filled, or you remove the claim itself. -- Vrenak (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If you count the number of spouses per person, using novalue gets you a count of 0 for items using that. That's what we want for people who never married. They never married, they didn't have a spouse nor did they have an entity called "unmarried" as spouse. Using "novalue" works fine for this property. Now we just have to find a way to fix the infobox. The problem seems to be at da:Skabelon:Infoboks person.
--- Jura 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Your logic would be correct if the property was the number of spouses. However, the property is the spouse item. If there is no spouse and we know it, a novalue is a way of saying that this property can not be filled: it is kept empty not because we don't know but because we know there is nothing to enter. Koxinga (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
In view of the description of "no value" at mediawikiwiki:Wikibase/DataModel#PropertyNoValueSnak "no value" seems appropriate in the case of a dead person who we know was never married, when taken together with our practice of listing all known spouses, whether the subject of the item was married at the time of death or not. In a more general context, outside of Wikidata, "unmarried" just means not married at this moment, and "never married" means not married up to this point in time. Whenever we document these terms we should be mindful of how these terms are used within Wikidata versus how they are used in a more general setting, and how the shades of meaning are different for living vs. dead people. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The other means to manage this is to do a count; ie. a property "number of marriages", where the count can be 0 .. n. This does actually have an advantage, as 1) there are numbers of people who we know married, though never know the spouse; 2) there is a lot of reluctance or inactivity to create a spouse of another otherwise non-notable person. From Dictionary of National Biography there are many mentions of spouses, and I know that I pass adding that detail, sometimes for lack of helpful detail, other through the effort required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I sometimes use "no value" to prevent people from adding "Coat Of Arms" and "Sister city" without thought. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
But please add only "no value" to coat of arms if you know that the entity does not have coat of arms. Just a missing file on Commons does not eligible the use of "no value" --Pasleim (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pasleim: I see no point in adding COA:"no value" to every single thing that does not have a COA. But when people repeatedly add a COA to wrong item, for example into Malmö (Q2211) instead of Malmö Municipality (Q503361), then it could be useful to stop these "games" and other "automatic imports" that causes us problems. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No one is married to unmarried (Q28341938) or never married (Q22101595). Neither are appropriate as a value, and both should be deleted. The entire point of novalue is for cases like this. --Yair rand (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If I am allowed to add to the confusion: A few times, I have run into the case where a work by an anonymous has been claimed to be by anonymous (Q4233718). It seems to me, that like no value is better for unmarried, then unknown value is better for these cases? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, unknown value would be appropriate for this case. Otherwise we have problems because two books who's authors are both "anonymous" would be treated as being by the same author. ChristianKl (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If anyone like to hear what I say, I think it is better to write "unmarried" rather than "no value". Unmarried is best used for people who's marital status is definitely known as unmmarired. "No value" is open ended and suitable for people who's marital status is unknown. In this case, its best to have unmarried because we know he's unmarried. MechQuester (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

"no value" is not open ended. If the marital status is unknown, one has to use "unknown value". "No value" should only be used if one definitely knows that the person is unmarried. In case of Franz Kafka (Q905) this is given.
The property isn't "marital status" but "spouse". Unmarried might be a reasonable value for a marital status property but it's not a spouse. ChristianKl (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
and unknown value could be used for not knowing "if" married, or "to whom" married. Though the guidance on whether to populate that way is interesting as in other places the absence of data is used for "unknown". On similar note, do we differentiate between a marriage and just co-habitation?

How to model physical, literary and other remains?[edit]

We have place of burial (P119) to indicate where people have been buried, but sometimes, their physical remains may not all have been buried together. Should we model that on the person's item or should we start separate items for these remains (think Albert Einstein's brain (Q2464312))?

Plus, some people have literary and other non-physical remains that find their way into various collections, e.g. at GLAM institutions. Should we have a separate property for that on the person's item or again another item? Finally, in some cases, remains of "notable" non-human organisms (e.g. Ham (Q28270)) or even machinery (e.g. Atlantis (Q54381)) may need similar treatment.

Any pointers and suggestions welcome. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

And also sometimes the physical remains moves to different location. To new burial place. Geagea (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Geagea: I think that could probably be modeled by way of multiple place of burial (P119) statements, each with start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
For Jacques-Louis David (Q83155), I've used applies to part (P518) : heart (Q1072). Pyb (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
A new property would make sense. ChristianKl (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect in[edit]

François Pithou (Q1451161). Article in is a redirect to other person: Pierre Pithou (Q2093849). Is it ok? not sure what to do. 12:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

no, they are two different man. - yona b (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the en.Wikipedia article and added some sources there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
here is a better image c:File:François Pithou par Gérard Edelinck.jpg curious no author page at french wikisource although there are a lot of google book hits [10] Slowking4 (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This is no Wikidata issue but a en.Wikipedia issue. Whether or not François Pithou (Q1451161) is notable enough to warrant his own article is the decision of en.Wikipedia. If he isn't notable enough than it makes sense to redirect to the page of his brother where he's also mentioned. ChristianKl (talk) 09:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added a father for the four brothers. It has them well connected :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi, I notice that entries for Wikipedia pages (say, atom (Q9121)) don't have a link to Wiktionary definition pages, but there are links to projects such as Wikibooks and Wikiquote. Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it is quite difficult to explain the reason. The simplest explanation I can think of is that the basic Wikidata unit is an entity whereas the main Wiktionary unit is a word. One word can name many entites and one entity can have many names, so the relations are not 1:1. On the other hand, one Wikipedia article (usually) describes one entity and one entity can have one Wikipedia article (per language version, of course). There is an ongoing development of the system Wiktionaries will share the data with. You can find more information at Wikidata:Wiktionary. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikia: property for IDs or create items?[edit]

We're discussing the best way to store details of Wikia wikis, at Wikidata:Property proposal/Wikia wiki ID. Further constructive comments be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

History of first settlers and of first hotel built in the town of Nyngan[edit]

I believe that the Nyngan Hotel opposite the railway crossing from the east was built as the first hotel in Nyngan. I also believe that the person who built the hotel was by the name of Laurence or Lawrence Galvin from Ireland. This hotel contained 12 bedrooms and was much later about 1975 ??? sold to a family by the name of BIRT and was deemed to be unsuitable to be used as a a hotel due to firre regulations. Could someone advise me if the above information is correct. Also if a George McClealland was on the shire council in the 1950's also a family by the name of Antill lived within Nyngan. Any help would be greatful.

Roger Edwards  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 02:39, 17 January 2017‎ (UTC).

Though this seems to be about the place in Australia which we represent at Nyngan (Q917556), your query is not related to Wikidata specifically. You may do better to ask at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible vandalism in undesirable edits to en labels in non-en language[edit]

Hi I have reverted a few edits that I thought were vandalism, but I am not sure what is going on, so I am just going to report here a pattern I noticed just today - a user is changing English labels into Spanish (or variant thereof). This might even be a good faith edit if the person doesn't know they are changing the English label but are trying to add a label in their own language. Unfortunately it's an ip address. See this diff. Is there any way to warn about changing labels in general? I am thinking about something like "You are changing an English label, do you want to proceed?" or something like that. Jane023 (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That is not a good faith edit. I see no need in the notice that you mention as there is already a clear indication that the label is written in a given language.--Micru (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. I will only pick a few of these up probably, as I have no way of checking the work of IP adresses. This showed up on my enwiki watchlist for a list of people by occupation. The other one was for a depicts field in a painting here: diff. Jane023 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #243[edit]

I "solved" majority of the 2500 people without gender, but with photo task. There are now 232 are left (mostly multiple people on the photo/sculptures/drawings/my missclicks). I went forward and assumed their gender from the photo, but there might be some errors since it is 2017 and gender questions are rather complicated :-) Cheers Wesalius (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Text to wikiData conversion[edit]

Given a text, is the conversion to wikiData format (i.e text to graph) conversion done manually or some software/algorithm/rules used to do it automatically ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2606:a000:4dcd:af00:6ca8:a4a6:88b:b3fa (talk • contribs) at 18:50, 17 January 2017‎ (UTC).

I've left some links to tutorials and help pages, on your talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We don’t have any magic algorithms that can extract data from an arbitrary, fully unstructured text. However, since many available inputs contain some degree of structure, we do indeed use quite a lot of automation to import data to Wikidata. Mostly from Wikipedias, whose unstructured sources contain structured and therefore machine-readable elements such as categories or templates. In general it is technically also possible to (semi-)automatically import from external databases with a public interface or highly structured HTML pages (via scraping). —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Property proposals needing comments![edit]

As can be seen at Wikidata:Property proposal/Overview there are a vast number of newly proposed properties (I count about 60 in the last day or two). Many of these are from GZWDer and seem to be pulled from a wide variety of wikipedia templates where we still seem to be missing corresponding properties here. Please take a look and add supporting comments where you feel appropriate, or otherwise. Thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not happy with GZWDer flooding wd:pp. If he is semi-retired as he states on his userpage, what is the point of proposing so many properties that he is not going to use? Besides, many of his recently created properties have not been notified to the participants in the discussion, and they are lacking a connection through "instance of" to the property tree. @GZWDer: Care to comment? --Micru (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
After sabbatical this edit GZWDer starts directly with property creations... --Succu (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no policy requiring people to maintain a certain level of editing before contributing property proposals. If that's all an editor does, they're still helping to develop the project, and the proposals should be judged on their merits, regardless of who made them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no policy is one of your beloved phrases. - So what? Did his/her property creations reflect our comunity sense of doing things right= --Succu (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry as I have not add instance of (P31) to newly created properties. For "not going to use": I'm going to populate existing properties (currently doing competition class (P2094)) once I have completed all my proposal. I think it's better to have properties in advance as properties can not be created on demand immediately without discussion.--GZWDer (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@GZWDer: When creating properties you should also add the property to the example items and add relevant constraints, see the steps on Wikidata:Property creators. - Nikki (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Done.--GZWDer (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Can you please add "instance of" to the properties that you have created? But please don't do like ID (P3495), where you just added "instance of:Wikidata property", use more specific items, for instance for that case it would be Wikidata property for identification in the film industry (Q22964274).--Micru (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it is healthy when the project is flushed with so many new proposals. During the last months and years there have been many complaints that it takes too long till a property is created, there have been complaints that not enough users are commenting on property proposals and there were complaints that there are not enough active property creators. Both the number of active users [11] and property creators [12] did not strongly changed during the last year so I predict that it will now take even longer until a property is created. Moreover, I doubt it is healthy if users are proposing properties when they are not interested in the topic. If a proposal gets accepted, the property also needs to be maintained. Somebody must check permanently that the property is not misused, otherwise it is worthless. Property proposer are not obliged to do it but who else should do it? Note that there are not more users around just because there is more work to do. --Pasleim (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the magnitude of the flooding, and the low quality of the proposals, I propose that if any of those property proposals gets at least one support vote in the next two weeks we keep them, otherwise we mark them as "not done".
Regarding the unused properties, I think we should have a RFC about what to do with them. Maybe we can come up with a process less cumbersome than WD:PFD.--Micru (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (Q7832471)[edit]

This should be more specfic, but there wasn't a property for document version, or current document date.

There are multiple versions of this so, I'm not sure how to proceed

Also I got a note as to "repealed by" and "ammended by" which I proposed a long time ago, but no-one seems to be using.

Does Wikidata have the means to do Outreach through GLAM? I ask because my main reason for wanting the parameters is so that WikiData could import a portion of the OGL based database holds (it's more than just the legislation text) , which would make it nearly possible to auto generate a legislative history infobox purely from WikiData held information :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Multiple versions of the same publication[edit]


This page is explaining the history of the periodical currently known as International Review of the Red Cross. In Wikidata we have two items Q6052761 and Q27722028 (I merged Q24238387). In my opinion, the remaining two items should still be merged given that they both relate to the 'mother title' and the issues numbering is uninterrupted. The new item would then have multiple ISSN (P236) and title (P1476) with qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582). Beside of that, it would be necessary to create another item for the review published between 1869 and 1918 (under two different titles) and 2 items for the exclusively English (1961-1997) and Spanish (1976-1998) versions. Is it the right approach ? Louperivois (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. The content it seems would be overlapping, provided the differences are minor. They are sufficient. Thats my 2¢. MechQuester (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The proposal is somewhat problematic. The translations are their own separate works, and would be "translations of". While the original authors may be the same, the attributes of the translations are different. The editors may be different, etc. So while there may be a common parent for all the works in a conceptual sense, there are numbers of cascading subsidiary items as we drop down to editions.

I still don't think that we have a good _shared_ understanding of "books" <-> "literary works" <-> "editions" <-> "translation".  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Addendum. If the same plant species exist in various items for various names, then books in different forms probably do too if they have different provenance, or other clear differences. That the Cambridge needs to split them into four should give us a good indicator.  — billinghurst sDrewth
Let me precise that in my idea, Wikidata would ultimately have 4 different items corresponding to the 4 core versions that have their own issues numbering (IRC, BRC, RCE and RCS). But there would not be ~9 items corresponding to each different ISSN. Louperivois (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Petscan: collecting redirects only?[edit]

I am looking to identify any English Wikisource author page (select a category: +2 down & author: ns) which is redirect = yes (tab 2) and has an item (tab 5), so my query is petscan:677381. I thought that the redirect tick would limit but it does not seem to do so. Can anyone suggest an alternate? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: You might try WD:Request a query. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The option works for smaller queries, maybe the system cannot handle so many authors. I would try to subtract some pages through "Negative categories", "Has none of these templates" etc.
A workaround could be an SQL query which doesn't handle well category trees, though. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I will just work through the next layer-down (or two) categories. It is not me misinterpreting the instructions and the switches.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


Demanding Add new Languages on Wikipedia: Amharic, Alconquinn, Dakota, Blackfoot, Syrian, Ainu, Okinawa, Ural Altai, Aboriginal, Tasmanian, Shelta, Ulster Scot, Cumbric, Old Irish, Quechan, Assyrian, Newfoundland Scottish, Zuni, and the etc. What do you think?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 05:50, 18 January 2017‎ (UTC).

@ What do you mean by "Add new Languages on Wikipedia"? Some of these languages are already available in Wikipedia. Pamputt (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a process for adding languages and that is taken with crosswiki approach. m:Language proposal policy  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Bug in merge?[edit]

Merge added word "redirected" to en label and description. Don't see anything suspicious in MediaWiki:Gadget-Merge.js (which hasn't been edited for some months now), so there is problem somewhere else? --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Someone add it manually. It is not from merging items. - yona b (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do Special:Diff/429962627 and Special:Diff/429962639 explain? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I feel so stupid now. Thanks. --Edgars2007 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Problems with the administrative divisions in Indonesia[edit]

Hi everyone, but specially to Beeyan and Fexpr, whose I think could help me so much.

I set the Spanish label and description for 59950 items with the instance of (P31) and fourth level administrative division in Indonesia (Q2225692). The description that I used in Spanish was "pueblo de Indonesia" but then, when my bot made all the changes, I think deeply and check that fourth level administrative division in Indonesia (Q2225692) in Spanish is "aldea de Indonesia", so I begin to change the description from "pueblo de Indonesia" to "aldea de Indonesia" with QuickStatements. But now, checking more items I have discover that many items have fourth level administrative division in Indonesia (Q2225692) and desa (Q26211545) and I have new doubts: are this two items the same administrative division or different?

I understand that in Indonesia exists fourth administrative divisions: the smallest, a desa which in English is a village and in Spanish is pueblo and then, inside a desa, Indonesia has another one, a kampung, which in English is a hamlet and in Spanish is aldea. Checking the two items that I said in the previous paragraph, I have two possible theories: 1. fourth level administrative division in Indonesia (Q2225692) and desa (Q26211545) are the same item; or 2. the first is for desa and the second for kampung.

In the other hand I think it is a bit confused because there are many items with the two items in the instance of, but I imagine that it could be only one of them, and then, one a subclass of the other, or some structure in that way. What do you think about it?

Excuse me for all the wrong edits and my mistakes. My intention in my first task with CanaryBot was help to have the Indonesian data in Spanish too, but I didn't it in the right way. Depending of the correct answer to my questions, could be necessary to add pueblo de to desa in Indonesia and aldea de to kampung. If anyone think that I have to revert my 1000 approximate edits with QuickStatements, please told me and I revert it to the last descriptions before my edits.

I await your answer.

Regards, Ivanhercaz Plume pen w.png (Talk) 01:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Instance of person definition[edit]

Hi, I'm going through the persons category on the Wikidata Game, and I am popping across some fictional and mythological characters. Do these entities count as people in the eyes of Wikidata? Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

They have their own classes, e.g. fictional character (Q95074) and mythical character (Q4271324). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Identifier property for Worldcat Identities[edit]

I am trying to determine how to input a Worldcat Identity property for an organization. For people, Wikidata & Worldcat use the LCCN number, like n80126289 for Isaac Asimov (Q34981). Worldcat then derives a value of lccn-n80-126289 for their identifier for Isaac Asmiov. For organizations, Worldcat uses a different format. For the Python Software Foundation (Q83818) for example, Worldcat uses nc-python software foundation. What Identifiers property can I use for this? Peaceray (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

URL to diff[edit]

{{URL to diff|}} isn't working, but I can't see why. Can anyone fix it, please? IIRC, it was imported from, or modelled on, the version on en.Wikipedia, which does work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)