Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
(Redirected from Wikidata:Project Chat)
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.
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 2015/10.





for permissions

for deletions


for deletion

for comment



query wikidata for some category[edit]

I know I can get an entity as json by querying the wikidata by this url: but can I get more than one entity in one query/url, for example getting all the entities of american actors or french presidents best reagrds, -- – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 21:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

In good time[edit]

well, I need, estem, do a project, which has several advantages, I'm here, because I want to be on wikipedia, so help with all kinds of articles in Spanish in English.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mazdacited Mikedoffer (talk • contribs) at 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC).

Anyone wanting to learn Pywikibot?[edit]

I am looking for people that would like to run a Pywikibot on Wikidata. The less you know about programming the better. - My goal is to write a super-simple to follow guide that teaches the various skills. But I need people to ask the important beginner-questions, check my English, (etc..). I started separate tutorial, so I can shave away all the old stuff (e.g. python2.7) and focus on one clear to follow learning path: Wikidata:Pywikibot - Python 3 Tutorial. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have just written my first (ever) Python script and am waiting for approval. Your tutorial helps me now, although it's drafted. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: Perfect. Just post any question or requests you have and we can work on them together. I looked at your script and we could turn that into a chapter of the tutorial. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I am now stuck on adding quantities. I haven't found it documented anywhere and am not in the mood for looking into the resources and trying to understand what I do wrong / what is expected. This includes some other features. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: I hope this can help you a little: Wikidata:Pywikibot_-_Python_3_Tutorial/Data_Harvest#Getting_claims. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Python and Pywikibot are definitely on my "to learn" list; but there are a few current jobs I want to get out of the way first, so I may need to continue soldiering on with Perl as my go-to language first for a little while longer. Jheald (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
BotAcademy 2015, swedish

Hi Tobias1984, Swedish Wikipedia has a Botacademy this year (and a cool logo!), maybe they can give some feedback, share their write-ups etc? (2014 by Jan Ainali?) --Atlasowa (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Atlasowa: That would be great! Will the botacademy use Python3 and Pywikibot-Core too? I would like to avoid the added complexity of having to explain legacy syntax and libraries. --Checkallthestrings bot (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC) --Tobias1984 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tobias1984: I know very little about the BotAcademy (but i like their logo :-) and the goal of educating better bots :-) ), maybe ask Jan Ainali or User:Anders Wennersten? --Atlasowa (talk) 12:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Awesome wih new tutorials! We haven't decided yet the exact details of what we will go through, but we will for sure try to use as updated tools and libraries as possible. It is André Costa (WMSE) who is project manager and I am pretty sure he will happily receive input. By the way, there will be some (small) scholarships for travel to attend and the dates for it is 28-29 November. Jan Ainali (WMSE) (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Atlasowa, Jan Ainali (WMSE): Thanks for the information. I hope we can collaborate on the tutorials, or even merge them to reduce the workload. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@Atlasowa: Do they harvest wikipedias or „real sources”? --Succu (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Logic Model Bot Academy
@Succu: It's a training for writing bots, not sure what they say about data sources to be used... (Wikimedia-l) Lsjbot+Bot Academy, anderswennersten Sep 16, 2014: "... we will now start what we call Bot Academy. A dozen of our experienced editors will, with the support from WMSE, learn more of running bots. First by sessions on basics, common knowledge stuff, in order for us to be able to use bot as a complement in our editing efforts. And after that we will have sessions for advanced use, taking in the learning from Lsjbot and Naskobot, in order to see if also we can find areas where we from excellent sources can generate articles." The current big bot-project on swedish WP is "all places" (sv:Användardiskussion:Lsjbot/Projekt_alla_platser, gtranslate) by LSJbot based on Geonames, which i wouldn't call a good source (user generated quality mix...), plus data copied from other Wikipedia-versions. Currently sv:Kategori:Robotskapade_geografiartiklar shows boticles for Macedonia: 10842; Nicaragua: 2706; South Sudan: 5514. See also (Wikimedia-l) LsJbot and geonames, anderswennersten, Sep 5, 2015. --Atlasowa (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Arabic Wikipedia Bot Intro
@Tobias1984, André Costa (WMSE), Jan Ainali (WMSE): There is a Pywikibot video tutorial in arabic, ha! Awesome. --Atlasowa (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Atlasowa: Looks like the video explains all of the Windows and P2.7 caveats (encoding, env-variables). But I think the community should really make a push towards P3 now. The unicode strings make the handling of multi-linugual information so much easier. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Mixed data: deconvolution[edit]


Generally, these two terms are exchangeable, but does have differences.

‘Deconvolution’ is more popular, and mathematically more concise.

Consider X=A*S, deconvolution should produce a unique solution that reflect the ground truth.

In contrast, decomposition can be any ‘matrix factorization’ in the form of X=A1*S1 or A2*S2, the solutions are not unique and may not reflect the ground truth.

Deconvolution, refers to process with goal of identify ultimate components, elements. Decomposition, refers to break down the mixtures into parts, but not necessarily the ultimate components.

Living vs. Date_of_death not filled in[edit]

Is there a way of distinguishing living people vs. date_of_death not filled in? Should date_of_death be filled in as "null" for living people so that we can find those people that need their death dates researched and filled in? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I recall using "unknown" once where the date/year wasn't known, but I haven't done this every time because I'm also not sure. It should be blank (the property absent) if there is no death, obviously, no? "unknown" implies that there has been a death but its date isn't known, in my opinion. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Date of death "unknown" (="somevalue") means we know the person died but we don't know when it happend. Date of death "novalue" means we know the person hasn't died. (more precise: we knew the person hadn't died by the time of the statement). Property absent means we don't know if the person has died or not, or we do know but nobody has added the statement yet.--Shlomo (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there is an agreement to use "novalue" for living people. In any case, it would lead for most checks we currently do on death dates to fail. --- Jura 08:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I do. You probably should addapt your checks so that they cope with it. Or do you have any other idea how to distinguish positively living people from positively death people with unknown date of death? --Shlomo (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Any idea who wrote that and what website it comes from? --- Jura 14:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Found it: Special:Diff/126530398. Not sure why it's there or what it's based on. For more recent discussion, see Property talk:P570.
BTW, Property:P1317 works for that. --- Jura 14:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a page that documents where Wikidata is reused outside Wikimedia?[edit]

Hi All

I can't seem to find a page on where Wikidata is reused outside Wikimedia projects, does one exist? I know Google reuse content in their knowledge graph and there are cool visualisation tools like Histropedia. Would it possible to create one in a non manual way?

Mrjohncummings (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Mrjohncummings, start with Wikidata:Tools/External tools? --Atlasowa (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much John Cummings (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

How to enter a language family?[edit]

How do I say that Nyingwom (Q36753) is in the language family Savanna languages (Q4403672) and where do I discuss this? Subclass of, instance of, and part of all feel a bit off. Is there an existing discussion on a property for "language family" and whether it was rejected? I was trying to find it, but failed. --Denny (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We settled on with I think. There used to be a property but it was deleted in favor to generic classification properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah well, not sure I like the solution, but will do so. Is there a link to the decision? Thanks! --Denny (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
We had a property super language family. The deletion discussion you find here --Pasleim (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: what it currently done is actually often the opposite:
Though it might logically equivalent, I think it sounds more sensible. Actually part of (P361) is used as well in English (Q1860). --Zolo (talk) 05:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
@Zolo: I don't understand, there might be mistakes in your comment, you used twice the same item in a statement. (It seems I was reading one of my comments :)) author  TomT0m / talk page 06:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Uh actually, I had misread you comment, and hence miscopypasted :O. I guess I mostly agree this you that this is the best solution we have --Zolo (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Apart from that, yes,
Visite fortuitement prolongée used to use both instance of : language and subclass of : <the language family> on the same item. I did not really agree with this, we had a chat with Pamputt. Unfortunately I just discover that (s)he was blocked indefinitely on frwiki :/ fr:Discussion_utilisatrice:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée. author  TomT0m / talk page 06:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd just say here that I think a more specific property like "language family" would probably make more sense here, and lead to less confusion. Semantics like the one discussed here can still be layered on top of that, but the ground data would always be clear. But I am getting very tired of having this fight repeatedly. --Denny (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@Denny: Sorry to say the thing like but we are also tired of people coming with THE good idea about properties. If you are fighting again and again, perhaps it is time to change your method: instead of proposing unrelated properties at periodic intervals, start to provide one big overview of how you want to describe a complete field of items. What WD is missing are people working in team inside Wikiprojects and trying to develop a model with a structured list of properties. If you already spoke with 2-3 contributors about your proposal before starting the proposal, you will have more chance to get their support that if you just put a proposal expecting that people will do the job of understanding how your proposal will match the needs of WD. Snipre (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Denny: And then we would return to the old "family/superfamily" pair ... It is very much parcimonious to have one consistent way to class things. It's always the same pattern that recurs in a lot of fields, and in the end everyone can understand Help:Classification. Plus in Wikidata it's pretty hard to make a new property accepted, way more than to get an infobox parameter accepted (for example, a property to link a science to the objects it studies can be in the pipe for acceptance for years without beeing accepted or rejected, see study of in Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science which had its first birthday a few deays ago!) . So in the end, having powerful and generic solutions is giving the project oxygen. With templates like {{PropertyForThisType}} we can associate a list of property to a class which can help document the whole stuffs, and we can build things around classification generically that can benefit as is to other fields. By contrast having specific properties to do always the same thing, which mean an inflation in the classification property number with their specific guidelines, for ... what ? author  TomT0m / talk page 16:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Item for unit of time "year"[edit]

Which items should be used as unit "year(s)"? year (Q577)?

From the description, it seems to be Q1092296, but its current label "Annum" doesn't really make it suitable.

Shall we create a new item? --- Jura 18:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In some cases, typically those related to astronomy, the unit should be Julian year (Q217208). – The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs).
First we should make clear which "year" (or "annum" or whatever; the name in some particular language shouldn't be decisive) property describes which unity of time, and then we should apply the appropriate one to every particular statement. At this moment, I can see at least 3 approaches (and I assume there will be more of them...); I just can't identify them with particular items :(
  1. Year as a unit of time with a specified length (365.25 days, or 31557600 seconds?), so that 2 "years" from September 28th, 2015, 10 pm means September 28th, 2017, 10 am. Useful in physics, astronomy etc.
  2. Year as a period of time ending by the end of the day with the same description as the day of beginning of the period, so that 2 "years" from September 28th, 2015, 10 pm means September 28th, 2017, 24 pm. Useful for election periods.
  3. Year as a period of time with a specific description (e.g. 2015). Not very useful, but still possible; in some countries the duration of a copyright protection is 70 "years" (as described here) after the death of the author; it means the work of a person who died on September 28th, 2015, 10 pm will be copyrighted until December 31st, 2085, 12 pm. Alternatively, this concept may apply on periods starting and ending on other specified date than January 1st, like fiscal year starting in March or academic year starting in September.
Unless we make this clear, the discussion about which item to use for a "year" doesn't make much sense. At least for me.--Shlomo (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

given name (P735) on items about pen names[edit]

I'm wondering what the proper value for given name (P735) for items whose primary label is a pen name (Q127843) should be (like Robert Jordan (Q166351) and Robin Hobb (Q234403))? AFAICT from the german and english articles linked at given name (Q202444) neither Robert nor Robin are the correct given names because they're not the names given to these person at (or shortly after) birth. The same question also stands for family name (P734) --Mineo (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For pen names we have pseudonym (P742). Use given name (P735) only for the name given at birth. --Pasleim (talk) 07:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was hoping for, thanks! --Mineo (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pasleim: should we take that literally? (I'm guessing we shouldn't) So legal names which were not assigned at birth (i.e. they changed it later) are not given names? Or can given names also be "given" by other certificates/themselves and so be changed? For example, Chelsea Manning (Q298423)'s given name (P735) is listed to appropriately account for when her name changed from Bradley to Chelsea, but Chelsea isn't her birth name. Also, Jimmy Carter (Q23685)'s given name (P735) is listed as "Jimmy", but I don't think that is even his legal name, and his name at birth is commonly known to be "James". --BurritoBazooka (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
@Pasleim, Mineo, BurritoBazooka: I don't think the advice given above is correct. If one were to run a query for "all SF authors with first name Robert", one would certainly want Robert Jordan to be included in the returns. I therefore suggest that Robert Jordan should have a given name (P735) value = "Robert", but maybe also with an agreed qualifier statement, perhaps applies to part (P518) pseudonym (Q61002), so that if somebody really wants to exclude pseudonyms from their query than they can. Jheald (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I can not agree with that. There is no unique defintion of a given name, but defintions you find in literature speak about a name given to a person [1], not chosen by oneself. Only exceptions can be if there was a legal act by which the name was changed. --Pasleim (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a mistake to put too much weight on precise wording of the label or description attached to an item or property. These should be considered to be current reasonable approximations at most, and are far from guaranteed to be directly equivalent even across languages. So I think it is not appropriate to base an analysis in a legalistic mode on what may or may not be the narrow meaning of the word "given".
More important, it seems to me, is how the property can be useful. In this case it is useful to be able to find authors by their first name, even if that first name relates to a pseudonym. It would be easy enough to add that additional information using a qualifier, to allow people to make the distinction; but would make searching harder without it. In any case, we may not necessarily even know whether an author's name is a pseudonym or not. It would be silly to remove an existing given name (P735) just because we discover the name is a pseudonym. Property birth name (P1477) exists to record the actual name somebody was legally registered with at birth. That is the appropriate place to look if somebody really wants a birth name, rather than somebody's most commonly used personal name distinct from their family name. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Less than one week left for Individual Engagement Grant proposals![edit]

There is less than one week left to submit Individual Engagement Grant (IEG) proposals before the September 29th deadline. If you have ideas for new tools, community-building processes, and other experimental projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Dating relative to Big Bang[edit]

For dating "significant events" of the universe (e.g., the "start time" and "end time" of, say, the inflationary period, or the lepton epoch), using the Julian or Gregorian calendar is clearly ridiculous. We need a third option for dating events relative to the Big Bang. Or am I just not seeing how to do this with our current infrastructure? - dcljr (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the closest way of doing it might be to do followed by (P156) and follows (P155). That's how items like Cretaceous (Q44626) are currently treated. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
We do not need a new datatype, though - it would be sufficient to have a property that means "after beginning of universe" with the quantity datatype, and the values could be "5 microseconds" or "100 Million years" etc. --Denny (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think at least two new properties are necessary: "time after beginning of universe" (for discrete events) and "start time after beginning of universe" (for periods of time) — "end time after beginning of universe" is not strictly necessary if we can co-opt running time (P2047) [was called "duration"] for that purpose. BTW, a similar issue arises if you want to date events in, say, human fetal development (in which case we would need to use times relative to conception — although I'm not sure how necessary that would be). I also considered a new property "start age", which would work (more or less) when dating the "Lepton epoch" in the item universe (Q1), but wouldn't work when dating the same thing in the item Lepton epoch (Q1079826) itself (because: age of what?). - dcljr (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) [Nevermind: there is no such "co-opting". We would need a whole 'nother property for the length of time. - dcljr (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)] [Also, I've renamed "duration" to the more appropriate "running time". - dcljr (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)]

Kristiina Mäki (Q17275699)[edit]

I would like if someone could resolve this one. I don't want to edit war... Please see the item history and also User talk:Enzino. Thanks for your time, whatever you then decide to do or not. --Stryn (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed all claims without references. BTW, please don't add qualifiers to human (Q5) --- Jura 19:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is correct now, we have country for sport (P1532) for situations like this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


The DNB biographies like Q19085207, is the plan to convert these into instance of human when a Wikipedia page is made for them, or will they stay in instance of an edition and be used as a reference for the data? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought they should normally be instance of (P31) biographical article (Q19389637), and maybe part of (P361) Dictionary of National Biography (Q1210343) (or some more specific part of it). They should *not* be converted into instance of (P31) human (Q5) -- start a separate item for the individual as an individual. Jheald (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Compare for example Hobart, James (Q15985561) Jheald (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
When you read a Wikipedia article about them, they are exactly like this. Calling them a "biography" is weird. GerardM (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: The point of doing it this way is that these items were created to be sitelinked and in 1:1 correspondence with texts at Wikisource. So this is intended to be the item about the particular text. There may be many texts at Wikisource, all relating to the same person, but taken from different works. This approach allows them all to be sitelinked. It also means that a template at Wikisource can systematically use the main subject (P921) to store who the text is about. And having an item for the text is exactly what we need, if the text is to serve as a reference. So for all these reasons it's quiteuseful to have an item for the text, separate from the item for the individual. Jheald (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose it is the same as for "portrait of xxx" items. Many museums think their portrait painting should be the article about the person and often give the painting the name of the person. However a portrait is not the same as a person. We obviously have lots of backlog in this area, because I believe there are more portrait paintings in use to illustrate articles about people, than there are wikidata items for the portraits of those people. --Jane023 (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. Thank you. GerardM (talk) 10:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
What Jheald said. When we first integrated wikisource into wikidata we looked at just linking the biographical articles into the same wikidata items as the subject of those articles. It was pointed out that one person can have multiple biographies on wikisource (a DNB entry, a Britannica entry, a Catholic Encyclopedia article etc.) so it was decided to link these wikisource articles to wikidata items about the articles rather than to items about the persons. This has the advantage that the wikidata item can have statements describing the wikisource article - what it is an edition of, author name, what it is a biography of etc. 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unit window[edit]

Is there a way to turn off the Unit window? It makes my life difficult... Xaris333 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Propably using CSS... why would you turn it off? How would you then add kilometers to length? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I add only numbers, with out units. For example, [2]. The unit window shows everytime I put a number and that cost me time... (That ±1 also cost me time. Who thinks all these things; Puting number, without units, it should be the easiest, not so complicate.). Xaris333 (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the ±1, see phabricator:T105623 where several people are trying to convince others that assumed margins of error are incorrect far more than they are correct. Your input there as an end user inconvenienced would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 17:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
For human users it has at least one advantage - it makes the user think about if there is a margin or he means an exact value - quite often source stating exact values omit the margins. However oddly lately a bot starts to add margins of ±1 [3] for data which is listed as exact value in the source (infobox in English WP). Besides, I doubt that the whole city is at the same elevation, making the whole datum a bit bogus. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
For human users it has at least one advantage - it makes the user think about if there is a margin or he means an exact value - quite often source stating exact values omit the margins My suggested separate field for uncertainty would prompt the user in the same manner without assuming the value they enter is incorrect, and without introducing errors into the data (e.g. at British Airways Flight 2276 (Q20962419) number of survivors, number of participants and number of injured are all exact figures and had to be manually correct from ±1. Where a source does not specify margins of uncertainty we need to record that as "unknown" as we cannot guess. For a city it might be an average height above sea level (±0.5 meters/feet, ±500 metres/feet or anywhere in between) or it might be the exact height above sea level of a standard reference point. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 21:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Statistics show primary sources tool is a failure[edit]

I am happy to have learned that there are statistics for the primary sources tool after all. It shows that after all this time slightly more that one in a thousandth of its content found its way in Wikidata. Given that the quality of the content hidden in there is as good if not better than what we have in Wikidata, it is in my mind an extremely deplorable state of affairs. Particularly because it would have been much more productive to concentrate on workflows that would concentrate on the quality of Wikidata itself.

One tool that is proposed would be extremely worthwhile checking content in content in Wikidata but goes for inclusion of its data in the primary tool. Such an approach hides the technology away from us and consequently it will not realise the potential that it has.

Another fact that condemns the implementation of the primary sources tool is that it not even acknowledges the source the data came from...

In my opinion we should import everything into Wikidata that fits our criteria. The primary sources tool was a nice experiment and it deserves to be abandoned. When there is some merit after all, I love to hear it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

19 165 new statements is definitely not a failure. --Jklamo (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
See Measures of Success. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
When not even one percent, it is actually slightly over one in a thousand of all that data has been touched. How can you possibly say that it is a success? The Freebase data is as good as what we have. It is sheer discrimination that its data is largely ignored. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
did you GerardM involve in its success ?
I personally feel it could be better used and approved with a lighter interface. The complete refreshment of items after each approval or reject is very long and unfriendly. Does not help to work with items that have many primary source tools claims to add/remove :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I have often argued that the approach of the "primary sources tool" was flaky. I have been reassured time and again that everything will be well. Its UI is what is part of my Wikidata experience and it sucks in many ways. I have been told that this subject may be discussed and so I do. There are many arguments why this approach has failed and seriously, on a good day I can easily add as many statements as have been added from Freebase in all this time. In my honest opinion, it demonstrates clearly what failure it is. It would be polite to put it to pasture. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that's less than 5 seconds per statement without a bot if you edit for all 24 hours of a day! Could you elaborate where I can get approval for performing edits this fast, which seems way past the usual rate limit and, I'd say, way past the limit at which a human can check his own edits? --Mineo (talk) 09:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do add from Freebase but I refuse to spend time on any particular statement ie I will not spend more time as for any other statement.

users copying bad examples from bots copying "imported from: English Wikipedia"[edit]

Wikidata References (Jan-June 2015)

Here. Looks like this is the wikidata standard source now? How often does this happen, that non-bots add "imported from: English Wikipedia"? --Atlasowa (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, if the data is from a unreliable source like Wikipedia, I prefer that they use imported from (P143), even if the it's done by a non-bot. I do that myself in rare occations. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
yes, I do that too, whenever I couldn't find on the wp page the source of the info. At least, this way, it is possible to find from which wp the info comes from (on some items wp disagree). :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I've also been doing it, I assumed that it is to be done for anything where the source is the Wikimedia page(s) linked to the item. There was no documentation or warnings to imply that I should do otherwise or that it was only for bots. I suggest if this is not the purpose of this property, then documentation should be changed. Every now and then, I would go through Wikipedia pages to find more reliable sources, and add them to the item instead. I also sometimes would use "imported from: imdb" if there was already an IMDB ID linked to the item (similar with Musicbrainz). Again, the purpose of that property is not stated clearly in the first place. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a crutch. You might use it, as long as there is nothing better, no better source. Bots might import contradicting statements from different Wkipedias, so there is a chance to see the contradiction, to get it right and to improve the wiki(s) with the wrong information. --Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
it would be better to be able to use stated in (P248) wp, when adding a human contributors adds it as wp says it, but I couldn't find wp's source, but there is a constraint that prevents to use stated in (P248) and forces imported from (P143) :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

See also Property talk:P248#Receiving Warning on P248 (1 February 2015): Today, I have started getting this error message when setting a reference 'stated in': "An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed. Details Warning: Use imported from (P143) instead." Sounds like a Special:AbuseFilter (but which one?) or something else? The warning shouldn't direct users to use imported from (P143) Wikipedia, but rather to use stated in with "real" external references (or, possibly reference URL (P854)). --Atlasowa (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Atlasowa: Special:AbuseFilter/54, see Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/11#Abuse filter or Revert bot. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

About Property:P627[edit]

I have a question about the Property:P627. The IUCN ids are not stable. In 2013.2 version, the website changed all ids in the bird species. As you may read in es:Wikipedia:Bot/Solicitudes/Archivo/2014 Sem2#UICN, the site manager said about it: "The Ids are not fixed, although we try our best not to change them – the birds had to change because of an internal system issue. You should really be linking using the name of the species rather than the Ids, if you can. We are working on an API, that allows you to link to the species name, and this redirects you to the proper page on the Red List website, if that would help. You can have a look here: , look at the weblink method". Therefore in es:Template:IUCN ids not used, but a redirection that is based on the species name. Is it appropriate to maintain a id that is not stable over time? Metrónomo (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Metrónomo: Usually the ID will vanish if a taxon is no longer assessed or is lumped/splitted. My bot is updating IUCN conservation status (P141) together with IUCN-ID (P627) here for a while. The data provided by IUCN have two problems: 1) they do not refer to all „objective” synonyms and 2) spelling variants are unresolved. This makes it harder to connected them to an item with taxon name (P225). We have around 1000 items with IUCN conservation status (P141) mostly imported from enwiki which have no reference. A lot of them are birds. :( --Succu (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


@Magnus Manske: Something went wrong with this item. It has an identifier which is duplicate of another. The second one is however held by another item which seems to be the correct one. Thus the next step should be deleting the identifier in Q18878536 (everything already resolved in Mix'n'Match) but that would be problem because Charles Matthews changed the data in the item a bit. So I am not sure know how to fix this problem. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages and Commons category (P373)[edit]

Is it correct to add Commons category (P373) to Disambiguation items? like these cases?Yamaha5 (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No. How can a DP have a commonscat? A DP doesn't refer to 1 subject. Mbch331 (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So we should clean this query also many of Disambiguation items have incorrect p31. many items have wiki links combination of Disambiguation and normal pagesYamaha5 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Some Disambiguation pages are pure collections of things that just happen to be spelled similarly but there are also some Disambiguation pages which are a list (or class) of things that are thematically linked and should really have a 'subclass of' claim rather than 'instance of:disambiguation page' claim. As such they may well have an associated Commons Category. This applies to some of the items that Yamaha5 links to above but not to others. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
and there are other I found that aren't disambiguation pages at all. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I said also many of Disambiguation items have incorrect p31 Yamaha5 (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes disambiguation pages link to a commons category disambiguation page on the same word. In such cases, Commons category (P373) should be OK, isn't it?--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

How to access a single value as integer[edit]

Hi, I want to access the latest population of Germany and use it to do a calculation with it but {{#property:P1082|from=Q183}} yields: 80,500,000±500, 81,083,600±1. Wat do I have to do and where could I read this without having to ask here? --Saehrimnir (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You have to use Module:Wikidata (Q12069631) for better data retrieval methods. --Pasleim (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Units not shown in example property documentation[edit]

When the example is taken from the statements of the properties and the property type is quantity with units, the unit isn't shown on the talk page (see for example Property talk:P2067). It shows the quantity without the unit. Mbch331 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be updated in the module (mentioned in the section above). Some things to remember:
  1. (not deployed yet)
  2. decision whether we want to use labels or quantity symbol (P416) unit symbol (P558)
  3. correct algorithm (using existing methods)
If no one has picked this up, I will do this as soon as I have tested it in cswiki. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I hadn’t heard of using quantity symbol (P416) for unit symbols yet. Is there any discussion for this? ’Cause I don’t think that’s the right property – that seems to be about quantity symbols, and the current format string (“single character”) doesn’t even fit most units (“kg”). —Galaktos (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Unless they keep inventing Unicode symbols like ㎏ and ㎢ ;) --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
@Galaktos: Sorry, I meant unit symbol (P558). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that makes a lot more sense. (Though perhaps we need a new property, since apparently unit symbol (P558) has an unsuitable data type – see talk page.) —Galaktos (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New constraint for datatype with unit[edit]

Is it possible to create a new constraint for numeric datatype with unit to limit the number of items used as unit ? Snipre (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: +1 (something like {{Constraint:No unit}} and {{Constraint:Unit type}}). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done, please see {{Constraint:Units}}. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The first results should be available at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2067 tomorrow. Although there might be some violations as I don't know all the units for mass that have been used so far with mass (weight) (P2067). Mbch331 (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

List of units with associated properties[edit]

A lot of persons start using units datatype but don't know which items to select for the unit. I proposed to create a list in wikidata:Units to list all units, the quantity measured by the units and the associated properties. This should helps people to find the relation between properties and units. Snipre (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Special:ListProperties/quantity gives a list of 140 properties by data type quantity. Does this help, Snipre? --Atlasowa (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the link. Snipre (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wanted pages[edit]

Is someone monitoring Special:WantedPages? It currently lists almost a dozen "missing" pages that are linked to from over 100 other pages. The "most wanted" page (no label (P107) with 577 links) and 6th most wanted (no label (P132) with 179 links) are properties that were deleted 5 and 9 months ago, respectively. Is anyone working to remove/replace these properties from items? The third "most wanted" page is $1 (459 links), which is a generic placeholder used in some programming contexts that is not appropriate, AFAIK, in any context on this wiki (e.g., even in templates); the 5th and 15th "most wanted" ($link and $talkpage) are similar. Is there something I don't know about how Wikidata works that would make such "variable" links meaningful/useful? - dcljr (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Looks like "$1" has a special meaning in the "Translation:" namespace. - dcljr (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, $1, $link, $talkpage have special meaning in the Translation: namespace. So they can be ignored. Mbch331 (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The page doesn't seem to be of much use for Wikidata. --- Jura 08:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The properties P107 and P132 aren't used on items so there is nothing we can remove. Most of the incoming links are from talk pages. --Pasleim (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
If there was a MediaWiki hook to ignore links from some namespaces, it would be awesome. By the way, I have just fixed one entry. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I restored 1 item because it had incoming links from the main namespace: ISO 639-3 code (Q17376887). Would be nice if someone could check the item and it's incoming links. See if the incoming links can be deleted or the item merged. Mbch331 (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought I had checked WhatLinksHere for at least the 2 properties I mentioned, but apparently not. Oops. If you click on the "(### links)" link after each item, you can narrow it down to links from certain namespaces (e.g., the main one). Jura is right: the properties I mentioned aren't used in the main namespace. And $1 has a special meaning. So nevermind. - dcljr (talk) 04:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

New Tool: Wikidata Timeline[edit]

Screenshot of Wikidata Timeline, displaying a query for Former Countries

Hello, I've been working on a Wikidata-based webapp called Wikidata Timeline. It lets you visualize a list of items (specified by a Wikidata Query) in the form of a timeline. Here are some samples:

Known to work completely on Chrome 44+. Tested to mostly work on Firefox/IE :) It's stable enough to be useful (for anyone who wants to use it), but still has a decent todo list of features to add. Let me know what you think! You can also report problems (or view documentation, or view the source code) at Github. --Hardwigg (talk) 05:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't work in Chrome 45 here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 :( Could you tell me how it's not working/what's happening? Operating system might also be useful so I can try to recreate your issue. --Hardwigg (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It was on a school computer, running Windows 8.1. Javascript console shows Uncaught Error: [$injector:modulerr]. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice, Hardwigg! I tried to improve the info at Wikidata:Tools/External tools#Wikidata Timeline, do you have a screenshot to add? --Atlasowa (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Atlasowa! I added a screenshot there (and here above). --Hardwigg (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Nice tool, thanks! And also interesting data. Wouldn't have thought that Wikidata knows more current wars than at any other point in history, and that it doesn't know a single war for almost 500 years between 525 and 967. However, that may change with more items getting filled with more data. --YMS (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I found that interesting as well. Wikipedia says that the Dark Ages are "characterized by a relative scarcity of historical and other written records at least for some areas of Europe, rendering it obscure to historians", so it might be a limitation of the period itself. But then again there are 555 items which are instance of:(subclasses of:War), of which 343 (~60%) lack start time information. --Hardwigg (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
It's no more unusual than finding that Amos n' Andy was the only American sitcom until about 1950 (no distinction is made between the radio and TV broadcast), and that I Love Lucy was not a sitcom (does not appear in the chart). --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

P131 items need cleaning[edit]

Many items are linked to located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) but some of them are incorrect (P31 is not subdivision of a country) like this or some of them don't have country (P17). the query is here.Yamaha5 (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Babel AutoCreate[edit]

This automatic account has recently created many categories that do not make sense. Eg. Category:Cs-3 should be Category:User cs-3. If you look at Special:CentralAuth/Babel AutoCreate, it's clear there are some problems cross-wiki. I suppose it should be blocked and nuked. Does anyone know whom we should report this? (Notifying per if this account is malfunctioning please notify the community.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be Phabricator. Mbch331 (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Aude, Katie_Filbert (WMDE):. Snipre (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
See phab:T112868. It seems it's already been fixed and isn't creating new ones. It's not clear whether there's a script to delete the bad ones it created yet or not. - Nikki (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

University/Hochschule and User:Infovarius[edit]

I'm not sure what to do. User:Infovarius has twice reverted edits on university that I made as the superclass higher education institution made no sense (see the wikipedia links for Hochschule, which refer specifically to a German/Scandinavian type of institution, and one which is explicitly noted does NOT include even many German universities). I tried to engage User:Infovarius here - User_talk:Infovarius#University_is_NOT_a_subclass_of_Hochschule and got no response. Suggestions on what to do? Is this an issue with higher education institution meaning different things in different languages? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian terminology:
ru:университет (university, Q3918) is subclass of ru:высшее учебное заведение (higher education institution, Q38723);
ru:высшее учебное заведение (higher education institution, Q38723) is subclass of ru:образовательное учреждение (educational institution, Q2385804)
Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok then - "higher education institution" makes sense as a label - but it is clearly a different thing from the German term "Hochschule". Also there doesn't seem to be an English wikipedia page that corresponds to "higher education institution" exactly. Anyway, I suggest we need to disconnect the two meanings from different languages under Q38723. I'm willing to do this but maybe somebody who is familiar with more of the languages linked would be better? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Related discussions: Talk:Q38723Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
@Infovarius: reverting someone twice and not responding to talk page messages? Not cool. Please be kind to other users.
@ArthurPSmith: this is one of those fun modeling jobs. We have multiple countries and multiple languages all looking the same, but actually a bit different. Let's take Hogeschool van Amsterdam (Q945017) and University of Amsterdam (Q214341). The first one is what we call in Dutch a "Hogeschool" (like Hochschule) and the second one a university. In the Netherlands a university is definitely not a subclass of a "Hogeschool". To fix this we'll probably have to create new well defined classes and interconnect these. Take a look at en:Bologna Process for quite a bit of background information. Probably first step is to split higher education institution (Q38723) into the more generic "higher education institution" and the more specific Hochschule. Multichill (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In Swedish (sv), you probably have to split the term "Högskola" in how it is used today, in the 20th century and earlier. It is a term is constant change. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In Danish I would say "higher education institution" can be a superclass for "universitet" (University) and "professionshøjskole" (Vocational university/Fachhochschule). vocational university (Q17028020) and higher education institution (Q38723) is unfortunately a mess in the Danish part of Wikidata at the moment. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
We could just take the mayor (Q13423499) approach and create separate items for each type of school in each country and put these items in a tree structure. Multichill (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope this is ok - I've created Hochschule (Q21028957) and linked all the language wikipedia links that seemed right. That leaves behind higher education institution (Q38723) which probably should have some replacement links added and revisions of labels in other languages. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry for long non-responding: it's quite hard for me to track all lines of wiki (and offline)-activity... And two reverts, if they separated by several days, may look to me as very different activities too... But I like the solution that was made by Arthur by now. --Infovarius (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory language fields for languages not recognised by Wikidata[edit]

I've come across this twice, but I can't remember the first example. It was a tribal language of Colombia I think. The second example is in Demet (Q18411288), where the official title of the work is in Ottoman Turkish, a language that isn't used much any more, to the extent that Wikidata doesn't list it separately. The best I could do is "Turkish", but that is not the same language and in fact incorrect. There are probably many other examples, because languages fall out of use over time, but their data doesn't stop existing.

  • Where can I make a suggestion to have this fixed/changed? I don't think this area is a good place to make suggestions like this.
  • Is this a known issue? Was it discussed before somewhere, maybe by someone like me bringing this up here, or by someone making suggestions during development?

--BurritoBazooka (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

That lots of languages are missing should be a known issue. It comes up regularly. I would love to know what the proper way to request a missing language is, because my experience so far is that requests go largely ignored regardless of where they're requested.
I did find phab:T59342 which suggests that Ottoman Turkish is supposed to already be supported (although clearly it's not). It's probably the same problem as phab:T93880 where Northern Thai has just been enabled but still can't be used in monolingual text properties. - Nikki (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey :) There is a problem that the frontend and backend currently use two different ways to determine which languages are available. This leads to errors where there should be none. Adrian is working on that. He was on paternity leave for a few month which is why this stalled unfortunately. The ticket for that is phabricator:T78006. The other issue is languages we said should work not working. If such cases exist please reopen the existing phabricator tickets for them so we can figure out what's wrong - maybe just a missing configuration. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Nikki proposed a Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#hanja property for Korean names etc written in Hanja and I voted against it and said we should use monolingual text properties like official name ( P1448) instead, with a language that indicated the name was written in the Hanja script.
Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Does phab:T97882 cover this or does it need a separate phab item? If number with units can take any (or no) item as a unit why can't monolingual text do the same and have any, or no item as a language. That way we can create new language-plus-script items as required? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes that is enough. The underlying mechanism is different so it's not as trivial as just flipping a switch. But we'll look into it. I understand that more languages need supporting. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #177[edit]

Worked on a small birthday present (One month left!) and party organizing (more info coming in the next days) \o/ Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is an author of Tree-tool?[edit]

Hello. Who is an author of Tree-tool? I need the name, just for a honour. I'm writing the wikidata-manual for our ru-ws community. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sergey kudryavtsev: It's Magnus Manske I think. — Ayack (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Eh, it's seems that all wikidatа tools created by Magnus! Only WEF tool set is by Vlsergey. -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 03:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing Wikidata's data on a client input page[edit]

For my bachelor's thesis I will develop a concept to improve the editing on a client. I've set up an input page and would be happy about any comments and suggestions! Incabell (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


Hey :) Charlie is working with me. It'd be great if you can give her input and also help spread the word to the Wikipedias so the editors there give their input. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Incabell. Welcome to Wikidata. I fixed your link. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's celebrate Wikidata's birthday next month![edit]

Hey folks :)

Wikidata is turning 3 years old on October 29th. This is a reason to celebrate for all of us. We'll be having a big party in Berlin and I'd love to see as many of you there as possible. You can find out more at Wikidata:Third Birthday/Party

We also have a few more things planned where I'd love to have videos, images and other input from you. More on that on Wikidata:Third Birthday/Party as well.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem with an element[edit]


I have a problem with the item voice actor (Q2405480). In English, it is "voice actor", but it was translated in French as "acteur de voix", or "acteur vocal", which, while being literal translations, make no sense at all. The problem is that in French there is no real equivalent to "voice actor". In general, we refer to people who do dubbing (of foreign productions, of cartoons) by the expressions "doubleur" (dub actor (Q21012853)) or, occasionally, as "acteur de doublage" (dub actor (Q11481802)). I don't know about other languages, but in Italian they are known as "doppiatori". So I changed the french translation of voice actor (Q2405480) as "acteur de voix-off" ("voice-over actor") but that is not satisfactory, because in English "voice actor" is often used for people who do dubbing (for example : Mel Blanc) and not only voice-overs.

Also, I think that dub actor (Q21012853) and dub actor (Q11481802) may need to be merged (in favor of dub actor (Q21012853) which is shorter and more common). But with voice actor (Q2405480) we have three elements which often refer to the same thing, although the third one has a wider sense, which cannot be translated. So, apart from the fact that "acteur de voix" should never be used (it simply does not exist), what should I do ? Thanks for your help. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Q2405480. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There is, unfortunately, no way to always have good natural sounding labels for everything in every language. Languages just don't work that way. Some will consider two things a single concept while others will consider them two separate concepts and may not have a nice way to refer to them both as a single concept, like here. In those cases, all you can really do is to use a label which is more descriptive (e.g. something like "actor for voice-only roles") or list multiple things (e.g. "voiceover or dub actor"). If you haven't already, asking on the French chat page (Wikidata:Bistro) for suggestions might help. - Nikki (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Nikki, the problem is that some users have created a new infobox (here) which imports raw data from wikidata. As a result we have a lot of weird, badly translated stuff imported into the French wikipedia. I went to see that problem after seeing that the infobox had labelled a French actor who does dubbing "acteur de voix", which makes no sense at all in French. So if the data here impacts Wikipedia directly, what should we do ? Unless you think that the data here should not be imported directly into biographical templates. I also mentioned that issue with Danrok, who seemed to think that. So unless raw data import is prohibited, we have to find a solution to untranslatable - and therefore badly translated - things being imported on various wikipedias... Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Surely, this boils down to what is claimed in the original source? For example, the credits in the actual movie/work, and other reliable sources. If someone has been credited as a voice actor in a given movie, then all we do is make that statement in the data. Although that isn't always so straightforward because one movie can have many releases/cuts which are not identical, and at present we generally only have one data item per movie. The occupation property is always going to be problematic because it is an abstract concept, and not exact data in the way that date of birth is for example. Danrok (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Danrok yes but as I told you the problem is that now we have on wikipedia fr biographical templates that automatically import stuff from wikidata. So we have to find solutions of some sort... Unless you confirm me that wikidata's data must not be imported into wikipedia's template. That seems to be your opinion, if I recall, but I'd like to know what the other users here think.
As for voice actor (Q2405480), since it is very often (most of the time actually) used to refer to people who, in French, are known as dub actor (Q11481802), maybe the solution would be to translate voice actor (Q2405480) as dub actor (Q11481802) in French, or to merge both items ? (even though dub actor (Q11481802) has a somewhat more restrictive sense...) Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jean-Jacques Georges for bring this here. The fact that after French Wikipedia started using our data we found this thorny little problem is not a bug. It's a feature. This is a knotty little problem tied up with some language issues (a french label that is just wrong) but also with some cultural issues (not many actors make a living dubbing movies into English so it isn't such a big deal for English speaking editors) and we wouldn't have known it was there without the french experiment. These problems have now been dragged out into the sunlight.
First thank the French editors for spotting this.
It sounds like we need two different occupations - one for voice actors in original roles and another for voice actors recording translations (including translations of the voice actors in the first group). Does that sound right to the French editors or do these groups overlap so much as to be virtually the same? Do we need a supergroup that these two can be subclasses of? If so what should it be called?
If we need two (or three) items then we need to untangle the various existing items and their sitelinks and align them with these roles/occupations.
Then we need a simple mechanism for the French editors to correct the data for any particular item, as needed.
In short we need the French editors to think like knowledge engineers - they deal with templates so they are already half way there. Does that make sense? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page for this item there is a definition regardless of language barriers: Talk:Q2405480#Classification. --Kolja21 (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Joe Filceolaire : I'm afraid that these groups overlap a lot so they are virtually the same. Some actors dub mostly cartoons, other specialize in dubbing TV or theater productions, but others do pretty much everything. If I take the case of Roger Carel, one of the best-known "voice actors" in France (he has been, among many other things, Astérix's official cartoon voice for about 50 years), this guys dubs cartoons (foreign or not), films and TV series, and he has also done a lot of voice-overs. Not to mention the fact that he has also appeared a lot on screen, so he's not only a "voice actor" (but still his voice is very familiar in foreign productions dubbed into French). There is not a specific word in French for someone doing all these things : since dubbing is the most familiar activity, people generally say just "doubleur" (litterally "dubber") or "acteur de doublage" ("dubbing actor"). It's the same for Italy, where dubbing is extremely common.
Indeed, I think there is a cultural factor at work : since in the US or the UK, dubbing is not very common, people have started using expressions like "voice actor", but it's basically the same thing. Something like 90% of the occurences of "voice actor" seem to refer to what the French would call a "doubleur" (i.e., someone who post-synchronizes production). So I'm starting to think that "voice actor" should be simply translated as "doubleur" in French and "doppiatore" in Italian. However, such notions do not include people who do things like audiobooks.12:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Technical properties for films[edit]

Where would I propose creating technical properties fields for films. Sadly those categories were deleted from Wikipedia, and the data now only resides as IMDB technical specifications. See technical specifications for the Third Man at IMDB vs what we current information we store for the same film here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal is the place for all property proposals. If you're not sure which of the subpages to use, feel free to add them to the unsorted page. - Nikki (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Before starting the proposal of new properties, please contact the Wikidata:WikiProject Movies. There are already a bunch of existing properties to describe movies so better be sure of the need of new properties. Snipre (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
The subpage is "creative work". We already have "running time" and "aspect ratio". I think there is also a pending proposal for film format. If the data is in infoboxes at Wikipedia, it's fairly simple to import (categories are not needed). --- Jura 08:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Olympic Disciplines[edit]

As well documented in the en:Olympic sports article on Wikipedia, the Olympic movement operates a hierarchy of Sport / Discipline / Event, as an example Aquatics / Diving / Mens 3m springboard.

We currently have the classes Olympic sport (Q212434) and Olympic sport event (Q18536594) - so we are missing the disciplines class in the hierarchy.

I would suggest creating a Olympic discipline, as a subclass of Olympic Sport and with subclass Olympic sport event.

This would however entail that sport (P641) would need to move from Olympic sport to Olympic discipline.

Please share your thoughts on this topic --VicVal (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not all olympic sports are sectioned into disciplines (in other words: there is only one discipline for these sports; example: Rowing / – / Men's eight). How would these cases be affected by and handled with your proposed changes? Apart from that, I don’t see the point with sport (P641): Could you please describe why changes would be necessary and give examples? —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point! I got myself lost in my own pity, as Diving typically ends up as being referred to as Swimming or more seldom Aquatics. So question is, if we should introduce the "Discipline" for those Olympic Sports which actually have this structure and then accept that "all" Olympic sports are divided into two different class structures?
For sport (P641) the identification of Diving, Water Polo and Swimming should then be at the Discipline level and Aquatics be defined at the sports level. --VicVal (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Well in general I think it is useful to have an Olympic discipline layer in place, thus I support your idea. Since sport (P641) is used quite messy anyways, I would suggest not to bother about it. Rather try to connect diving (Q7735) with sport (Q349) by using subclass of (P279) as required on Property talk:P641. This needn’t necessarily be a direct connection, you can have something like diving (Q7735) (the Olympics discipline) subclass of (P279) swimming (Q31920) (the Olympic sport) subclass of (P279) water sport (Q61065) subclass of (P279) sport (Q349). Apart from the very first subclass of (P279) statement in this list, everything is already properly set as far as I can overlook it (okay, maybe swimming (Q31920) needs some changes depending on whether we position it on sports or discipline level; look at the WP articles what the actual content is). Useful in this context are also Olympic sport (Q212434), Olympic sport event (Q18536594). An item “Olympic discipline” does not exist as far as I see, but I think it would be okay to create one and use it with instance of (P31) on the corresponding items according to e.g. en:Olympic sports. If you create the “Olympic discipline” item I would appreciate if you arrange this initial setup. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
There is, in my opinion, a need for a taxonomy of sport. This should accommodate the fact that the paralympics, for instance, may have a dozen different events in a discipline. A discipline can can separate veterans and juniors divisions each with full range of events.
'sport (P641)', as I understand it is to refine a claim that some has <occupation:sportsperson>. This seems to correspond to "Olympic discipline" as this is the level at which most persons (as I understand it) specialise. They compete in various events in that discipline but few compete in multiple disciplines. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Authority control[edit]

Hi all, I only recently discovered that the English Wikipedia's authority control template is only pulling data from a tiny subset of person-related properties. It was my understanding that this would resolve eventually to all relevant authority control properties on any item of any type. Does anyone know of a Wikidata project in this area that is working on something like this? I would like to see an Authority control template that pulls useful sourcelinks for various domains non-person-related, such as artworks and books. --Jane023 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's really up to the Wikipedia to decide which data it wants to pull. From the Wikidata side, authority control identifiers on artworks or books are just external identifiers (string properties) like those on people. For books, there is a specific WikiProject, but I think its main purpose is to not rely on external identifiers ;) --- Jura 11:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

(Bot for) Daily articles & categories[edit]

There are many pages like Q21034767 & Q18710838. Could somebody please write a script to fill all of them with properties like I've done in these two? It would be also cool, if there was automatic script filling these properties on creation of such item.


Danny B. 11:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite unsure if we should really add follows (P155) and followed by (P156) to categories. --Pasleim (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
For Q18710838, shouldn't the main subject be just an item "30 September 2015" with P31: e.g. "date" (currently it's "Wikinews:2015/September/30"). The item "30 September 2015" would have "point in time": 2015-09-30. --- Jura 13:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Problem between temperature scales and temperature scale units[edit]

Jasper Deng
the chemistds
Egon Willighagen
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Chemistry

Tobias1984 Jakec Snipre Physikerwelt Pamputt Petermahlzahn Jibe-b Restu20 Daniel Mietchen TomT0m ArthurPSmith

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Physics

We have three temperatures scales degrees Celsius (Q25267), kelvin (Q11579) and degrees Fahrenheit (Q42289) but these items are used for the units too. I think we have to differentiate the temperature scales from their units. What do you think ? Snipre (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Réaumur scale (Q223061)? --Succu (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
We can add it to the list. But this doesn't help in the current problem resolution. Some comments ?Snipre (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I currently don't see the conflict of definition, but good to have the discussion now. Is there any other database that seperates those 2 concepts (ping @Emw: for his opinion)? --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: What exactly is your point? Absolut vs. relative scale? --Succu (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Succu, Tobias1984: Just have a look at the classification of the items, for example degrees Celsius (Q25267) which is defined as "instance of" scale of temperature (Q2394680) and should be "instance of" "unit of temperature" according to the general classification for units.
For me there is a problem especially if we consider Richter scale (Q38768): this is a scale without unit. So we shouldn't mix scale and corresponding unit. The scale has some special properties like origin, method of graduation or measurement which are not relevant for the unit. Snipre (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I think it should be subclass of (P279) of scale of temperature (Q2394680). And couldn't we just add 2 statements to the p279 property? --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
making temperatures comparable is tough. The easiest way is to have a bot that goes round and wherever it finds a temperature in Kelvin, Fahrenheit etc. it adds the value in Celcius to that statement. Not very elegant but quite effective. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What do we have to do with similar units[edit]

Jasper Deng
the chemistds
Egon Willighagen
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Chemistry

Tobias1984 Jakec Snipre Physikerwelt Pamputt Petermahlzahn Jibe-b Restu20 Daniel Mietchen TomT0m ArthurPSmith

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Physics

Sometimes there are units with different labels but equivalent concepts. Examples:

  • "Siemens per meter" is equal to "ampere per volt meter"
  • "gram per cubic centimetre" is equal to "gram per milliliter"

Do we have to create different items or do we have to use one item with different aliases ? Please comment in the next talk page Wikidata talk:Units. Thanks Snipre (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

We can use one item with aliases but there will be a few cases where separate items are needed. These will generally be where the units are used in different spheres and for measuring different things. The deciding factor: Do we need to make different statements on the different items? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, state that something is "X Siemens per meter" when the source tells "X ampere per volt meter" looks strange. I would prefer to have different items for them, with something like "said to be the same" between them. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Nothing prevent you to add both terms in the label like "Siemens per meter/ampere per volt meter". I create an example with gram per cubic centimetre/gram per milliliter (Q15639371). I think we should stay with the principle of "one concept, one item". If we start to create several items for the same concept in order to take account of cultural or particular cases, we will face a big problem like the one with have with human occupation which have different words depending on the gender in some languages. Snipre (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think we should stay with the concept of not adding anything to our statements, that the source does not tell. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. People people are looking for information, not an excerpt collection. There is no need to create separate claims for the same information stated in different ways in different sources. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Claims like "Hydrogen has the mass of 1,6605 · 10−27 kg" when the source in reality tells "1,008 u" looks very strange to me. I would then prefer to see a quality-version to the "stated as"-property. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Can we stay in the scope of the first question ? We never propose to change the value from the sources but to be able to merge same units. If you take a closer look at the proposed examples, you can see that 1 gram per cubic centimetre is equal to 1 gram per milliliter. So there is no conversion for the values. Snipre (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I know, there is no difference in magnitude between these entities. But in some ages and in some sciences, they prefer their own way to write things. A chemist normally do not write tons/m3, and a civil engineer do not talk about g/cm3, even if it is exactly same thing. This since a laboratory-chemist (normally) do not handle tons of a substance and civil engineers do not handle grams. As I said, I can accept such "conversions" if there is a kind "stated as"-property as a qualifier. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

So what's the unit difference between gram (Q41803) and kilogram (Q11570)? --Succu (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to create a relation between these items, to make it possible to make conversions between units with the help of statements, instead of hardcoding it into the modules and templates. How about a conversion-property that connect all convertible units to the SI-units? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The number of conversions for all possible derived compound SI units quickly becomes unmanageable. If there is to be anything of this sort, there should be an agreed list of preferred units for each type of measurement, and all the variations should have conversion factors to the preferred unit. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not propose that we should have relations between Lumen and Kilogram or even between "atomic mass" and "hektogram", but only from the non-SI-standard-units to the standard SI-units like gram to kilogram. That would make it easier to define such things as foot (Q3710) and mile, which can have multiple definitions. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should provide new property for Dimension of physical size (Q19110), with layout similar to has part (P527), where components are our selected basic SI units and probable some few other. Any unit item included in the set should be decorated with qualifier for exponent (Q2233915) (as number) and optionally unit scale (i.e. something from metric prefix (Q131299)). I don't know how to handle logarithmic scale (Q937378) yet, but maybe someone has brilliant idea for it. Such definition in the unit item allow to create script that convert it to artificial universal unit. Then using said to be the same as (P460) you can find other units, and using reverse conversion from that definition got result in that units. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We have one item for 'Waiter/waitress' - 'waiting staff (Q157195)'. If your language has two words and no word that cover both then use both words in the label or some long description like the English label for that item. The same applies to measurement units. There needs to be a real reason that can be expressed in statements to justify separate items rather than just having aliases.
If you want to record the exact words of the source then use "quote (P1683)'. That is what it is for. Statements are for turning that information into a form that is machine readable and comparable.
We need a property to give the size of every measurement unit in standard SI units - every length unit in metre, every pressure unit in Pascal etc. This is the first step to making every physical measurement in wikidata comparable with every other similar measurements.
Some properties to record which fundamental SI units make up which derived units and in what combinations would probably be nice as well. and that is my opinion. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Report for people with year of birth but not date of birth[edit]

Is there a report for people with year of birth but not date of birth? I would love to fill in those missing dates from the WWI and WWII draft registration for people that resided in the United States. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a query for male Americans born after 1875 and before 1930, that have a day-specific date of death, but only a year-specific date of birth. It finds 1563 of them.
You should find it easy enough to drop any of these conditions, if you want to make the query broader.
Use the 'Download' button to get a tab-separated file (or whatever format is most useful for you). Jheald (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Goof stuff, thanks! Working well, I was able to fill in the first one in just a few seconds. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
If anyone else is interested in filling in the missing dates of birth, you can register for free at Familysearch and have access to passport applications and the WWI and WWII draft and the Social Security Death Index as well as several state birth indexes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Instead of opening "edit", it redirects to "Set a sitelink"[edit]

Few minutes ago I clicked on "edit" (upper-right) at least seven times and every single time it redirects me to "Set a sitelink". It happened also with tens of other items in past two days, and it's going worse and worse. I do not want to set a sitelink, just to change or remove item, so I'm losing my precious time because some charlatan programmer can't fix basic things. Who is responsible for it? --Orijentolog (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

That means the Javascript isn't fully loaded yet. Could be the amount of gadget and scripts or the speedyness of your conputer. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: if this isn't working for you after Sjoerddebruin's suggestion, try using a different browser. I like to keep Chrome as a "vanilla" browser, as I have filled Firefox with privacy/CSS plugins. Things tend to work better with less plugins. Also, it is good to approach these things in a level-headed way, looking inwards first instead of trying to blame others from the outset. To help fix this problem (if it might be happening for other reasons than what was already suggested), what browser version are you using? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Sjoerddebruin & BurritoBazooka, thanks for info. I use Mozilla as primary browser, and I checked Java and it's up-to-date. Now it's faster then in morning, but still a bit slow. It's very strange because after 6,5 years on Wiki and over 125,000 edits, I don't remember anything like this before. So I guess it's my right to be pissed off, a little. :) --Orijentolog (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Orijentolog: The latest version of Mozilla Firefox is 41.0.1 (I use 40.0.3 and it works fine most of the time), you can check which version you have at "Help" menu > "About Firefox". Also, a technicality: Java is not JavaScript, the latter is only named like that because the language looks kind of similar (a stupid name, in my opinion, it's confused many people). JavaScript is very much reliant on the browser itself (the program runs in the browser) and not Java at all (it does not run as a Java applet). See w:JavaScript#JavaScript_and_Java. Chrome has an entirely different way of doing JavaScript, so pages with lots of JavaScript tends to work better there (in my testing, anyway).
I have often had the same issues as you, but it is only when I have a lot of tabs open, and Firefox becomes slow and doesn't load the Javascript components fast enough. Yesterday at one point it wouldn't load at all (not even in Chrome) unless I was logged out of WikiData, I think that was a problem on Wikimedia's end or with a gadget that was enabled on my account maybe (I suspect LabelLister, if anything). I agree that it should work better/faster, but I think it's just Firefox being slow. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@BurritoBazooka:, I'm using 41.0.1 version. It could be because of tabs, because I have tens of them opened in the same time (for cleaning wanted categories), but still confuses me because even before many tabs were opened but it worked fine. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Orijentolog:, try to disable Content Translation tool on wikipedia (if it is enabled) and check if it works. There is a bug: phab:T114462. --XXN, 22:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia user names as data[edit]

My recent proposal for a property for Wikimedia user names was recently archived as "not done". Many of the objections were on procedural grounds, for example that it "May violate WMF privacy policy".

I dispute this - not least because we already store the data in more generic properties (for example, Jimmy Wales (Q181) has website account on (P553)=Wikipedia (Q52); qualified with website username (P554)="Jimmy Wales").

It would be bizarre to not hold this data, when we hold individual's identities on Twitter, Facebook, various authority control systems, and the like.

I think we should reach consensus as a community that it is legitimate to hold this data once it is declared by the individual concerned and/ or is widely publicised in reliable sources. (We should of course, have an overriding policy, preventing outing in all of its forms).

Is this a suitable forum, or should we call hold a formal RfC? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Decisions on the property proposal page should never be thought of as official or community consent. A small well-written RFC might give the issue more attention. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Aspect ratio vs width to height ratio[edit]

Q1441762 vs. Q20970434 (Aspect ratio vs. width to height ratio). Should they be merged? One is a general term and the other is used exclusively for images. They are synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We also have 16:9 Q20970433 and 16:9 Q1383069. The aspect ratio one has films linked to it, but the ratio version has nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

And we have also aspect ratio (Q1441762) --ValterVB (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I just corrected it to your proper link. Should they be merged as synonyms? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The second pair yes. There is a difference between the two items of the first. --- Jura 19:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Except that if you look at the statements and the sitelinks and the "What links here" on width to height ratio (Q20970434 )there is nothing that shows a difference between these. I think the items linking to Q20970434 should be redirected and the items merged.
  • If there is a wikipedia with two separate articles then we need two separate items. We may recommend they merge the articles and then merge the items.
  • If there are statements about one item that are not true about the other item then we need two items.
  • Don't make two separate items just because statements are better in your language if you have two different items. This is a sign that you need longer labels and descriptions in your language making clear that one item covers both language versions (e.g. 'actor/actress' even if the English label is just 'actor' - in current English 'actor' covers both sexes).
Hope this helps. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't. The existence of a height-to-width-ratio isn't language dependent, but, in forum chat, we don't need either. Obviously, we can improve on the sitelinking. Personally, I don't understand the statements added to Q20970433, as Q1383069 seems more specific. --- Jura 08:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


Some creative works are written in reply to a previous one. How to record it on a data entry?

Looking on current properties, I've found based on (P144), main subject (P921), inspired by (P941) and follows (P155)followed by (P156) are the most closer to my need, but I dont think that they are right for it. Any thoughts? Lugusto (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@555: Propose a new property, at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Learning how to add Music Artist to Freebase using bot[edit]

So lost on this topic of having a bot add me to the freebase site. I understand the freebase website is in read-only so what other way can I get google to recognize the information that would normally just be added to freebase. I do not have a website to be able to add the schema. Please help. The Artist is already added to wikipedia articles and wikidata as new item. What is Wikirecon_bot and how can I learn to get it to create a freebase new artist under music producer?

Wikirecon_bot is a Freebase-thing it seems. You've could add information to the Wikidata-item, but there is no guarantee that Google will pick it up. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Learn how to add datasets that are good enough to be uploaded using a bot like TptBot.[edit]

Instructions would be nice

First things first. Make sure your data is "good enough" for wikidata. Our standards are a lot higher than freebase. Until you sort that one you ain't uploading anything. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Economics[edit]

Wikidata:WikiProject Economics Needs more participants and the tables need updating for all the quanity-datatypes that were created recently (See: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2#total_debt). Please sign up and help with the waterfall of quantitaive property creations we are currently experiencing. --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Mental illness[edit]

At Mabel Boll Q6721414 I have added medical condition (P1050): mental disorder (Q12135) since she died at a mental institution. There are two references in her Wikipedia article. Two people keep deleting it without engaging on the talk page. There are clearly no BLP concerns. By deleting it we are saying there is a stigma to mental illness and it should never be mentioned (like they do in Japan for cancer). It is no different than saying she had diabetes. If she was there for Alzheimer's disease and that was listed as "medical condition (P1050)", no one would question it, but Alzheimer's is a mental illness. If you do not like "mental disorder" then get rid of it from Wikidata and come up with a pleasant euphemism like "brain disorder". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Try adding point in time (P585) as a qualifier. People might be a little more comfortable it was clearer that the data was specific to a particular point in time, rather than a lifelong condition. Jheald (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
and a reference or two. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fusion problems[edit]

Can someone fusion German de:Kategorie:Short Message Service with English en:Category:SMS-based question answering services (Q8695384) ? 23:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with this one is that "SMS-based question answering services" refer to a very specific type of service provided over the medium of SMS, where questions of users using the service are answered. This does not correspond to de:Kategorie:Short Message Service, which refers to anything related to SMS. They can't be merged because they aren't the same thing. I think a better merge candidate for de:Kategorie:Short Message Service would be en:Category:Text messaging, but I'm not sure, because in English "text messaging" these days can refer to any service where instant messages are sent with phones, whereas "SMS" refers to just one system (of which there are many others like WhatsApp) whereby messages are delivered. Maybe that doesn't matter. I'll leave that to someone else to decide. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone fusion German de:Kategorie:Vermittlungstechnik (Q9165699) with English en:Category:Telephone exchange equipment 23:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Link to item[edit]

Scratching my head: How do I link to a wikidata item from the associated page in some sister project? -geraki talk 07:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

A direct link would be [[d:Q12345]] or [[wikidata:Q12345]]. Some projects will have special templates too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
..unless you mean automatically picking up the data item linked to a page. I think that would require a Lua Module and, again. some projects will already have templates for it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Or  ? Also directly on Q12345 --- Jura 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean (as AdamBMorgan understood correctly) automatically picking up the data item linked to a page, and in fact not a link but just the string/value, for example "Q41" in a template inside en:Greece. I can't find it in the documentation of any "wikidata" modules in various wikipedias. -geraki talk 10:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

If the sitelink for en:Greece is defined on Q41#sitelinks-wikipedia, you don't need to call explicitly Q41 on en:Greece.
Sample: To get the information from Q41#P31: you can use {{#property:P31}} and don't need {{#property:P31|from=Q41}} to get the same result. --- Jura 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've remembered the name of the Lua Module. You can use {{#invoke:Wikibase|id}} on any project that has a version of Module:Wikibase (eg. English Wikipedia's version), which is based on mw:Extension:Wikibase Client/Lua, so most should have it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Merging items from mgwiki with other items[edit]

Somebody created items for the articles from mgwiki without checking for existing items first. Today I merged James Edward Grant (Q19948889) with James Edward Grant (Q119576). I found these duplicates by chance. I have found at least two cases in the last weeks.

Maybe it would be a good idea to run an automated checkup: If an item exists that refers only the a mgwiki article, and another item with the same lable in any language exists (especially useful for biographies), they should be merged. Perhaps a bot could create a list of merging candidates, so that we could check them by hand later. Jonathan Groß (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a bot doing this sort of thing. [Project Merge] looks for merge candidates between pairs of languages, looking for pairs of wikidata Items that link to articles with the same name in the respective wikis. There isn't a pair involving mgwiki. It seems you add requests [here]. I've added enwiki mgwiki as a pair as it seems the most useful pairing involving mgwiki, as enwiki is the biggest wikipedia, and I might be able to contribute to merging. You can add others if you want. Silverfish (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Jonathan Groß (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #178[edit]

Proposed global ban for Tobias Conradi (aka Tamawashi)[edit]

There is currently an open RfC on Meta-Wiki proposing a global ban for Tobias Conradi (aka Tamawashi, see Category:Wikidata sockpuppets of Tamawashi for more names he has used here). The RfC is at meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi. - Nikki (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Couple of days ago I blocked two more of their socks, following the CU results on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Fusion problems[edit]

Can someone fusion en:Category:Methodist denominations (Q9209758) with de:Kategorie:Methodistische Denomination ? SusanSonntag (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT this is ✓ Done: Q18820408 was merged into Q9209758 by SusanSonntag (move statements) and PLbot (create redirect) —Galaktos (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

How to get a wikipedia page name for an item using the API[edit]

Hi - this is a really basic question,, but I couldn't find an obvious answer in the API docs. How can I use the API to find the name of a page on (say) en.wikipedia? So e.g. I have[1339,350]and link[enwiki], and as a return value I want "Cambridge" and "Johann Sebastian Bach", both valid page names on Seems like an obvious question, so apologies if I'm just being dense. Thanks HYanWong (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@HYanWong: the API you linked is only for WDQ. I do not think this is possible with WDQ, but I'm not very experienced with all the APIs so I'm not sure. Once you have Q1339 and Q350, you can use and (a different API) and get the English WP article URL using the path ['entities'][ITEM_ID_HERE]['sitelinks']['enwiki']['url']. edit: See my example below of how to do this with wbgetentities. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC) --BurritoBazooka (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Python example to help some others understand:
import requests #

johann = requests.get("").json()
cambridge = requests.get("").json()


# edit about 2 hours after posting: I figured out how to get multiple items.
# Advantage of this is that we only need to do one request to the web service. Less wait time.

from urllib.parse import quote # makes " " into "%20" etc

items = requests.get("|Q350&format=json").json()
johann_title = quote(items['entities']['Q1339']['sitelinks']['enwiki']['title']) # I wonder why we can only get a title and no URL is available :/
cambridge_title = quote(items['entities']['Q350']['sitelinks']['enwiki']['title'])
url = "{}"

print("johann:", url.format(johann_title)) 
print("cambridge:", url.format(cambridge_title))
I don't know whether there's a way to get multiple items in one JSON request. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have any documentation for Wikidata's EntityData and wbgetentities APIs, for me and others? I can't even remember where I picked up the information about Special:EntityData. I tried to find it for HYangWong but can't so far. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I found some auto-generated docs here: -- more links here: --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That's really helpful, especially pursuing the multiple query options (I want to do this for over a million items: maybe perusing the dumps would be better). It's a shame this isn't available in the WDQ interface, which seems very quick even for large queries like this. Thanks again. HYanWong (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, some discussion at I see.HYanWong (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Cause of death[edit]

What is the cause of death for people who died in airplane accidents? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, "car accidents" are provided as an example for that property, so wouldn't aviation accident (Q744913) make sense? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Infinit loop caused by cyles when executing a SPARQL query[edit]


I want to get instances and all super types of a particular entity using the sparql query :

PREFIX wikibase: <>
PREFIX wd: <> 
PREFIX wdt: <>
PREFIX rdfs: <>

   wd:Q289 wdt:P31/wdt:P279* ?o.

Try it!

a QueryTimeoutException is firing, because the entity "Entity" <> creates a cycle by poiting to itself. Can you make it as a root ? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

I don’t understand what your problem is… you (or at least, the same IP) created the cycle yourself, and that has already been fixed. So where’s the problem? —Galaktos (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Cycles should not be able to cause path queries to get stuck in infinite loops.
In a query like the one above, the engine will keep trying to add another P279 step to the graph until no new nodes are visited that have not already been visited. It will then return the results.
It doesn't matter if some of the paths are loops, because such loops will get to the point where they do not add any new nodes that have not yet been visited, and will then be considered done. Jheald (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
And yet the query is timing out. Jheald (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The query ought to be returning the following

Interestingly, the following variant of the query does work:

PREFIX wikibase: <>
PREFIX wd: <> 
PREFIX wdt: <>
PREFIX rdfs: <>

SELECT ?o ?oLabel WHERE {
   wd:Q289 wdt:P31 ?a .
   ?a wdt:P279* ?o.
   SERVICE wikibase:label {
       bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" .

Try it!

It is possible that in the first query, the engine might be implicitly searching ?a wdt:P279* ?o before wd:Q289 wdt:P31 ?a -- resulting in a massively inefficient query. Jheald (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the 'explain' report for the query that works: [4]
and for the query which doesn't: [5]
(See Wikidata:SPARQL query service/query optimization for a little more about such reports, though it doesn't add much).
It does indeed seem that the original query is trying to effectively run ?a wdt:P279* ?o, and as a result is exploding. (Look at the "Units Out" column of the tables at the end, until the pipeline gets killed).
I had come across a similar thing already, when BIND was used to provide a value for a variable on the right-hand side of a path query [6]; but I didn't realise that, on the basis of the above, seemingly problem applies whenever a more-than-one-stage path query ends in a variable. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I have updated the bug report previously filed with Blazegraph (BLZG-1543), and also the the note on our own suggestions/issues page. Jheald (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Search items by description[edit]

Is there any (easy) way to search for some string in the description field of items only in one particular language? I'm looking for something like Special:ItemDisambiguation, except it had to be not searching on labels, but on descriptions. Thanks in advance. Paucabot (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. You could use --- Jura 14:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, might be easier --- Jura 14:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It ought to be possible in SPARQL. The SPARQL service (I think) has got fast indexing and range extraction on predicate values. However, the following query times out:
PREFIX wikibase: <>
PREFIX wd: <> 
PREFIX wdt: <>
PREFIX rdfs: <>

PREFIX schema: <>

SELECT ?q ?desc WHERE {
    ?q schema:description ?desc .
    FILTER (STRSTARTS(?desc, 'Langue'))     # Could also use CONTAINS()
    filter (lang(?desc) = "fr") .

Try it!

Maybe somebody can make it work? Jheald (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Try Autolist to see why it doesn't ;) I think you might want to try "langue" instead of "Langue". --- Jura 15:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that would indeed be exactly the problem if the query were returning 0 hits.
Also SPARQL has a function LCASE, so one could try FILTER (STRSTARTS(LCASE(?desc), 'langue'))
But the real trouble here is that the job is getting killed while it's still trying to gather every instance of ?q schema:description ?desc, rather than just extracting the cases it needs from an index. Jheald (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, but I have not been able to get it to work. I'm not very skullfull with queries and databases. Actually, I was searching for categories with wrong catalan descrition wikimedia-kategori made by bot. Paucabot (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
About 270k: (slow).--- Jura 17:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jura: I thought they were less. I'll try to ask someone to fix it with a bot. Paucabot (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Could be fictional, we're not sure, humans[edit]

So the topic of Kasongo Ilunga ( Q1735013) came up on the Wikimedia-UK mailing list and I realised we don't deal well with people we suspect are fictional but it's never been proved so now

OK? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite an interesting move for Biblical characters.
So we now have eg
I suspect that may be correct, but I'm not sure I'd want to be the one to be making the call as to who gets to be instance of (P31) human (Q5) and who doesn't.
Incidentally, what is the guidance on real people who appear in major fiction series, possibly with fictionalised histories, families etc -- eg historical novel series, history plays by Shakespeare, "alternative history" novels, etc ?
Should the wives in the novels be included on the items for the real people (where they may be picked up in searches for real wives?)
Or should new items be created for the fictionalised lives, perhaps said to be the same as (P460) the historical personages (or fictional analog of (P1074)) ?
What about biblical figures generally identified with historical personages (like Nebuchadnezzar II (Q12591) ?), but for whom some claims / relationships may only appear in the Biblical text ?
There's some further thinking, or at least guidance, needed here I think. Jheald (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we currently have ten examples of fictional analog of (P1074) items identified as humans: Jheald (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Plus about twenty fictitious entities said to be the same as (P460) humans: Jheald (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Imho we should follow a pair of items (like "historical figure" / "figure as depicted in the Bible") when we refer to a fiction biography that may include some non accurate stuffs. Considering the Bible is something you can (or not) believe, I think not everyone would consider it as a reliable, or a secondary source. What seconded by historians and historycal science journals should go into the "historical figure" item, and what's said in the Bible should go into the other one. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Jheald: There is also based on (P144). There may be a bunch of fictional analogs using that.
TomT0m: It seems like we don't resolve controversies here - we record the controversy and move on. sort of. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sixty hits with based on (P144): Quite an interesting list of fictional figures, even if my reaction to a few entries would be 'citation needed' Jheald (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge data[edit]

I'd like to merge this with this, as they are on the same topic, but I don't know how. Could anyone help me?--李4 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@李4: There are instructions on how to do this at Help:Merge. There's a section on "automatic merging" (the first section) which is the easiest but just needs a gadget to be enabled. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the diethyl ether peroxide (Q15726032) is C₄H₁₀O₂, but diethyl ether peroxide (Q3487286) is C₄H₁₀O₃, which is really different, unless if contributors of zhwiki article can change contents, there's nothing to be merged here. psst merged ignore me --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a typo; if you check the zhwiki page, then the formula (CH3CH2OOCH2CH3) is really C4H10O2. There is nowhere to stick in a third oxygen atom. --李4 (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that you also agree with me, I removed the mistaken formula. --李4 (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@李4: But enwiki contains Diethyl ether hydroperoxide (CH3-CH2-O-CH(OOH)-CH3)... , how do you resolve this, only change it? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's my bad. Now how can I undo this?--李4 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@李4: To undo the merge you can go to the history of each item and click "restore" (screenshot) next to the revision which is not yours (to restore the revision of the item as it was before the merger). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 04:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Property for online version of work?[edit]

Do we have a property for an online version (e. g. a scan) of a work?

In my case, one of dewiki’s sources for the article on Christianus Carolus Henricus van der Aa (Q1083011) is available as an online scan, so I’d like to add it as reference to some statements on the item. If I understand correctly, I shouldn’t use reference URL (P854) for this, but instead create an item for the source and then use stated in (P248). Is there a property to link to the scanned version in the new item for the source? —Galaktos (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Try full text available at (P953). --Succu (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Exactly what I was looking for, thanks! —Galaktos (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh. I see that Trinity College Dublin have recently made the Book of Kells (Q204221) available online. Adding this claim! Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

How to list all items without a qualifier for a given property?[edit]

In AutoList, is there a way to find all the items who have no qualifier for a given property? For example, all the items with award received (P166): Commander of the Legion of Honour (Q10855212) but without any qualifier for this statement. Thanks in advance. — Ayack (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, but if you compare the 2591 items with the statement [7] to those 61 with the statement and any of the qualifier for P166 [8] you should find your list. You can compare the two with pagepile. --- Jura 17:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ayack: Can you write a little bit of SPARQL ? see how to make a negation UPD or maybe a better link : , you should be able to write a query "select all statements with a property and not exists a qualifier snak for the statement". Please ping me if you don't get to a working solution :) author  TomT0m / talk page 17:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's a query in SPARQL: -- open the link, then hit 'execute' to run. (Apologies to User:TomT0m if by posting I'm spoiling his teachable moment). You could then paste the query into the SPARQL box in PagePile to get the results into Magnus's tool workflow, if you haven't already done so via Jura's method. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The difference between the two must the qualifiers that are being used, but not recommended: Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P166#Properties_statistics --- Jura 18:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's the count of qualifiers that are used: -- start time (P580): 79, point in time (P585): 61, date of death (P570): 1.
You had excluded P580 and P570, which are both considered violations. Jheald (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
eg: François Nizard Charles Joseph d'Hénin (Q3085468) (etc) for start time (P580); and Alfred-Henry-François Mimaut (Q14918086) for date of death (P570) -- which appears to be keyboard error. Jheald (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I changed the constraint for P166, so going forward start time (P580) should be fine. --- Jura 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems that for P166 one should be looking for statements that don't have specific qualifiers. Not sure if Ayack was actually looking for P166 .. --- Jura 19:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1, TomT0m, Jheald: Thanks for all your tips. I'll try to adapt them to my needs. I will get back to you if I have another question. — Ayack (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Editing an item about yourself[edit]

Hi, are you allowed to create or edit an item about yourself (assuming your notable)? thanks --Plarishome (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable means you have at least one Wikipedia article. If this is the case pls feel free to create and edit the item.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
One major discussion took place here. And the conclusion was maybe something like: Yes, you are allowed to edit about yourself, but be carefull. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems to become increasingly popular, but I don't think it's a good idea. --- Jura 07:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Mobile users are now redirected to mobile view by default[edit]

Hey folks :)

As previously announced we've now flipped the switch. Users on mobile devices are being redirected to the mobile view on Wikidata. This will give them a better view of the data on small devices. If needed they can switch to the desktop site. There is still work to do until Wikidata is truly great on mobile but this is a good step. Thanks everyone who helped.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An easy improvement for the mobile view might be to do a separate section for external identifiers. (currently within statements). --- Jura 10:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes totally. We'll be separating them both on desktop and mobile. Ticket for that is at phabricator:T95287. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting read, but the plan to do that is probably even older than the ticket labeled "Epic". Given that it's an epic, I suppose you don't want another round of comments ;)
A short term solution for mobile view with the most frequent ones might not be too complicated to implement. --- Jura 10:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hehe yeah. Wrt doing it on mobile only: If it would get us closer to having it solved on desktop as well I'd say let's do it. However when we dissected this in detail earlier this week it seems there is no benefit and we should just do it properly for everything. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

'/header' and '/footer' links[edit]

Is it safe to delete Template:Infobox periodic table group/footer (Q15060928) & Template:Infobox periodic table group/header (Q15075201) which have each six sitelinks? Wikidata:Notability/Exclusion criteria say any /header or /footer pages. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


I recently updated to put in some distance data.

I doubt Wikidata has trainfans, but I did want feedback if the taggging approach used here was Ok before suggesting it was more widely used..

Reamaining issues :

  • Dataset for the distances given Eu databse rights
  • Wikidata Quantity type doesn't as far as I know support multi-unit ( I'm using Km here), but for other rail-disatnces I'd have to use miles and chains, which would have to be converted to a single figure first ( which is cumbersome, NB All Mainline rail distances in the UK are miles and chains not km.)

Thanks ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Units is a good place to discuss unit problems. Snipre (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we have rail fans on Wikidata: User:Thryduulf, for instance. Perhaps we should have a trains project here on WIkidata? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you can get the data out of Network rail or TfL i don't see any objection to a UK rail project here :)

(On that front I think Network Rail were considering releasing some data under "Open" terms...) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Doubt about merging two elements[edit]

two people (Q15618652) and duo (Q10648343) are supposed to be the same and have to be merged or there is any reason to keep them as they are? I was going to merge them until I saw that duo (Q10648343) is subclass of (P279) of two people (Q15618652) and make me think that this can be intentional and maybe instead of merging theme the descriptions should be modified to make clearer the difference between them. -- Agabi10 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like there might be some subtlety in the exact meaning of the various sitelinks, but I don't speak any of the languages, so I can't say for sure what it is. Popcorndude (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Firearm companies[edit]

What statement and property can I use to tie all the firearm companies together? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)