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 2016/07.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.





for permissions


for deletions


for deletion

for comment

and imports


Twice a human[edit]

There are currently 456 items that are instances of both human (Q5) and some subclass of human (Q5).[1] Some of these were just set by User:Jura1 yesterday (such as this and this). Is there really a need to be an instance of human (Q5) twice (or of any other class for that matter)?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikidata:Project_chat#Database_reports.2FHumans_without_Q5.
--- Jura 14:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but that doesn't really shed much light on my question: what is the need to be instances of human twice?--Anders Feder (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Unless they are legendary figures, there needs to be P31=Q5 on items for individuals, that's all. ethnic group (P172) might be a better fit for other information you try to add there.
--- Jura 15:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Where is this requirement and particularly its rationale written down?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
There are constraints on properties for people that required these to be an instance of Q5, not one of its subclasses. The main rationale is probably that the structure of the subclass tree is to much random and a clear way of identifying items for individuals is needed. If you look at the report mentioned in the previous thread, other than the vikings where you recently removed Q5 without any prior discussion, there are few exceptions compared 1,000,000+ of items for individuals.
--- Jura 15:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Did my change violate some policy that would have required prior discussion for the change? If so, where is it (if it indeed exists)? And which constraints specifically are limited to instances of Q5, but not one of its subclasses?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a bit of an odd one - it's been well-accepted as long as I can remember that we use P31:Q5 for people and not P31:(subclasses), but I don't know if it's written down clearly anywhere. It probably should be - perhaps Help:Basic membership properties? Andrew Gray (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, is there any particular rationale behind it other than "that's what we've always done but don't really have any clue why"? If there isn't, perhaps that's why it isn't a policy?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Anders Feder: Do we really need policys for everything we do here? We could have created Wikidata with one single property with only one single datatype if we had preferred that. But that is not how we have choosed to do it. We have created occupation (P106) and ethnic group (P172) instead of using statements like. "instance of:male heterosexual italian blonde nurses born May 5, 1947". That solution is probably fully plausible, but that is not the model we have choosed to use. We have to be more or less consistent, for the data to be useful. So if your edits are different from everybody elses, your edits are probably not very helpful to the project. We could create a policy that forbids you to edit in that way. But since this project is very young and we still only have a working model for only a fraction of everything here, such a policy could potentially harm us. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
He asked about a rationale. Let me recall that it's totally not incompatible to have classes and properties. I gave suggestions on how to reconcile the two ways of doing : model the class male heterosexual italian blonde nurses born May 5, 1947 (Even if the example is bad as it's just an instance of slippery slope (Q876455) View with Reasonator See with SQID) : use statements has quality (P1552) [SQID] to define what properties and maybe values the instances of that class have, the same way Reasonator uses the qualifers on "list of" statements ?
Why not working on a template that implements a query that uses those statement "instance of <the class> or (has all statements with values compatible with the has quality statements of the class and its superclasses)"
Wikidata is a technical project, and if we can use technology to make people happily work together and help avoid hard conflicts, I really think we should do that. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Most subclasses of Q5 are occupations/public positions and should not be used with P31 but with human properties such as occupation (P106) and position held (P39). And I am not sure they should be subclasses of Q5 anyway. --Melderick (talk) 09:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Accessing Wikidata from Commons[edit]

Since March arbitrary access to Wikidata was enabled on Wikimedia Commons (thanks User:Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) and The Team) so now many of the Commons templates will rely more heavily on the Wikidata, and more information will be imported from Commons. We are about 60% done with converting all {{Authority control}} templates to use Wikidata identifiers. So here is the problem, Commons have many types of pages that might want to access Wikidata: Categories, Creator templates, Institution templates and gallery pages and Wikidata items have reliable links to them through properties, like: Commons category (P373), Commons Creator page (P1472), Commons Institution page (P1612) and Commons gallery (P935), while wikidata sitelinks are not predictable and might randomly connecting to one of those pages. Commons pages can detect sitelinks pointing to them, but I can not figure out how to detect properties that link to the current page. For example if I am at Commons:Category:Ilmari Aalto I need to be able to detect that Ilmari Aalto (Q4021419) links to me through Commons category (P373), but I do not know how. Am I missing something or that would be a new feature to request. At the moment we are setting up bots to add q-code to all templates on Commons pages that need them but it would be much simpler if we could just query which wikidata item links to current page through specific property. I asked about it on MediaWiki. but no answers. --Jarekt (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If you add Commons:Category:Ilmari Aalto to Q21618449, you can do that. If Commons:Category:Ilmari Aalto had its own item, you could find Ilmari Aalto (Q4021419) from category's main topic (P301).
--- Jura 14:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Category:Ilmari Aalto is already linked from Q21618449 through P373. That is what I would like to be able to detect. Most of Commons categories do not have their own items and those that do serve only as redirects (through P301) to article items with properties. Commons categories that do have their own items do not have interlanguage links to wikipedia articles as is the norm on Commons. Many Commons categories use cross-namespace sitelinks to Wikidata article items, so their interlanguage links are correct, but you can not predict which type of item it is going to be (category or article). Most Commons categories do not use any sitelinks and rely on old fashioned interlangage links (like [[fi:Ilmari Aalto]] used by c:Category:Ilmari Aalto). Properties P373, P1472, P1612 and P935 seem much more widely used and their content is predictable. Also no Creator/Institution pages have their own items. --Jarekt (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a lot of things to fix if you want it to get working.
--- Jura 15:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'd create items for all creator templates and use a property (maybe P1423 or P921) on these to point to the item for the person. In the sample above, the Commons link should be defined on Q21618449. This combined, should avoid you having to store item numbers on categories or in creator templates.
--- Jura 17:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I think creating items for Creator/Institution pages would be more consistent with how we handle other projects. I would create new properties for linking back to the main items though, because that's how we handle other namespaces. - Nikki (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a way to detect properties pointing to the current page. It also sounds like something that should really be done using proper sitelinks. I know that Commons sitelinks are currently a mess and there are multiple pages which would all want data from the same item, but (as far as I know, someone please correct me if I'm wrong) it would be possible to make a Lua module which checks the statements on the page's linked item and uses certain statements (like category's main topic (P301)) to load the main item, even when the item is not directly linked to it (as long as the Wikidata item is... and if it's not, then it should be! :)). - Nikki (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Nikki LUA can handle redirects from category items to article items, so having separate items for categories, creator templates and institution templates would work. At the moment majority of Creator/Institution pages have links to wikidata items, but it would be better if we could just look them up instead of maintaining them both on Wikidata and Commons. Having ability to detect properties pointing to the current page would save us a need for a lot of extra pointless items on Wikidata whose only purpose would be to serve as redirect to the the main item. We do have 3.5M categories on Commons, and many will likely not have equivalent pages in category namespace on other projects. Also neither solution solves the problem that most commons categories traditionally have interlanguage links to wikipadia articles, although maybe I can add them by a LUA code. Any consistent solution would be better than the current Commons sitelinks mess. --Jarekt (talk) 20:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
With "6 edits / min" you will need more then a year to complete this task, but I see no way around adding Qnumbers as in {{Authority control|Wikidata=Q367627}} Maybe you have the same problem with files like "File:Paul Abadie a 2013.jpg" who will need a Qnumber too. I have no experience with that, but maybe a bot would be faster if the bot would use a Wikidata:Database download? I mean, commons has 30 mio pictures, you can´t do that at "6 edits / min". Molarus 00:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok so at the moment I see 3 ways of connecting Commons pages to Wikidata:
  • Currently used approach of every page having a items q-code. It is the simplest but require that you maintain those links: item that uses Commons category (P373) should verify that that the category it points to is pointing back to the same item. Same with items that use Commons Creator page (P1472) or Commons Institution page (P1612). It is especially tricky when you discover that wrong pages are linked together and you need to remove links in 2 places or else bot will restore it.
  • Allow new capability of being able to look up what which wikidata items point to you, so if some item uses Commons Creator page (P1472), than that category page should be able to retrieve the q-code of the item that links to it.
  • Start creating giant and rather useless structure of massive number of items for Commons categories, creator pages and institution pages, whose only purpose in life would be to redirect to article items. I like this option the least.
--Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you want to focus first on Creator templates/items for people. The approach suggested above with a new version of Commons Creator page (P1472) using an item-datatype should be fairly easy to set up.
--- Jura 03:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The items aren't useless if they're serving a purpose. :) We create items for lots of things like categories and templates on other projects even if they have no interwiki links, it's not a bad thing, it's how Wikidata works. Doing something different for Commons creates special inconsistent behaviour just for Commons. I would say that's worse than having a bunch of extra items. :)
There are other advantages too, for example, using proper sitelinks would let people use existing tools for Commons in the same way they can for other projects, e.g. to find items not linked to Wikidata (using Special:UnconnectedPages or several of Magnus's tools for example). I have no idea how Commons people do that right now (is it even possible?).
The sitelinks thing is quite controversial (it could be a discussion all of its own) and the lack of a solution that works for both Commons and Wikidata seems to be the main reason why Commons sitelinks are such a mess right now. It should be possible to fetch sitelinks from another item (@StevenJ81: you're doing something like that for the Ladino Wikipedia, aren't you?), perhaps something like that could work? If so, are there other things which would need changing to make it work as expected on Commons?
- Nikki (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
BTW, it seems to work with existing properties, sample at Q14252858.
--- Jura 10:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nikki: I am, but the person to talk to is User:Innocent bystander, who actually wrote the code. But the way it works that the code effectively adds manual iw's to the page; its advantage is to do that by calling them from Wikidata. But adding manual iw links to pages doesn't work on projects like Meta, Wikidata or Commons, so the module won't work as it currently exists on those projects. Maybe Innocent bystander can help you figure out a way to do this. It's beyond my skills. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, by the help of arbitrary access, the module/template adds "old tradition interwiki" ([[xyz:Whatever]]) ínto the pages as a complement to the interwiki added by Wikibase client. The interwiki from the module is updated when the sitelinks on Wikidata are updated in related items. The sitelinks are available through LUA in the same way as the properties are. If I remember correctly, we have tested to add this on meta, but it didn't work by some reason. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Yes, we tested it on meta. I think it didn't work because even in the old days (pre-Wikidata), you couldn't really add "old,traditional interwiki" links ([[xyz:Whatever]]) to meta and get anything useful. (What you get is a link in body text—the sort of thing you get in Wikipedia if you add [[ : xyz:Whatever]] to the body text. Try it at Meta on a user page if you want to see how it looks.) The new code would have to deliver whatever Wikidata naturally adds to pages on Commons through standard sitelinks in order to work the same way. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Nikki: I am relatively new to Wikidata (since until this March there was little use for it on Commons), while most of people on this forum are likely to have much more experience with proper ways to do things on Wikidata. Lets narrow the discussion to people, biological taxons and places for time being. For every person article out there that has some graphics Commons should have a category, we have 300k of them in c:Category:People by name and many are linked from wikidata by Commons category (P373). Similarly every place on earth or organism that has some graphics also have category on Commons. It sounds like the favorite approach is to have an article and category item for each one of them. Most would have article item already, but might be missing category item. Also, all sitelinks to Commons would follow the namespace categories linked with category items and article items not linked with anything unless we have a rare gallery page. Last December User:Jheald had excellent report on links between Commons categories and Wikidata with a lot of numbers and statistics. It sounds like back then Wikidata had 254k sitelinks from article items to Commons categories. Those would have to be removed and replaced with sitelinks from category items. However the main reason to have wikidata-article->commons-category sitelinks is so the commons category would have proper interlanguage/interwiki links everybody go used to in last decade, so before we start removing them from wikidata we need to have a plan on how to add interlanguage/interwiki links to commons categories that will point to wikipedia articles. The code Innocent bystander and StevenJ81 describes sounds exactly like what I wanted to write. Where can I find this module? --Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Module:Interwiki (Q20819069) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Thank you that is exactly what I needed, I copied the code, simplified it (I think) and added category's main topic (P301) to said to be the same as (P460) so it works for the category pages. You can see it at c:Module:Interwiki. --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Are you sure this is what you want? As far as I understand the code, the module gets the entity in line 42 and uses this to improve the wikilinks (Changing wikilinks from WP:Categoriy:50 Cents to WP:50 Cents). As far as I have understood your problem, there are lots of category articles with no item, but this category has an item. Take for example Commons:Category:Ilmari Aalto which has no item: You are deleting in the code the link to fiWikipedia, add the module and in preview no wikilink to fiWiki is seen. Molarus 04:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Molarus: thank you for analyzing the LUA code. I do not see it often done and many bugs remain undiscovered for long time. I think the code is doing what I want. I would like to use it without providing the q-codes and in such auto-detect mode it only works for pages that have items on Wikidata (unless we allow my original request for pages to detect which item links to it with some specific property). In case of your example c:Category:Ilmari Aalto, which has no item the template does not changes anything. I added c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata, which calls c:Module:Interwiki and the page still displays interwiki link to fiWikipedia. --Jarekt (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
After I´ve done this: <!--[[fi:Ilmari Aalto]]--> the interwiki link is gone. OK, since lua can´t do the trick, maybe a solution with javascript on the toolserver that runs a Wikidata:SPARQL query service could help? This tool could show some data from WD on the category page. There are lots of Wikidata:Tools editors, maybe you can ask one of them? --Molarus 13:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Schema of properties and sitelinks connecting Wikidata and Commons

I want to provide some context here for those who may be very familiar with Wikidata and Wikipedia but not so familiar with Commons. Commons handles very different content than Wikipedia. The "gallery" pages (e.g. commons:Seattle) that you might expect to correspond to Wikipedia articles are few and far between, and often ill-maintained. Commons has far more categories than gallery pages, and far more categories than would be found in any of the Wikipedias. That's because, in general, where Wikipedia has an article, Commons has a category. (This makes sense because Commons is primarily a collection of media items.) If that category is a person (and in some other cases of collective authorship), Commons is also likely to have a Creator page.

Commons also has categories that would be insanely specific for a Wikipedia article, but are useful when classifying media, because we might have a great deal of media on something rather narrow. Thus we end up with a category like commons:Category:Plymouth Congregational Church, Seattle, Washington - Sanctuary or commons:Category:Georgetown PowerPlant Museum - hopper room. Obviously we would never write an article about one room of a building, but it is useful for categorizing a large body of media. - Jmabel (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

So now with a help of c:Module:Interwiki and c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata we can have customary interwiki links from Commons categories to Wikidata articles. Next stage would be to get help from Wikiata bots to clean up the mess with sitelinks to Commons. If we have consensus here, I would like to propose to create many category items for Commons categories and replace all cross-namespace sitelinks to Commons (is it still about 254k that were counted last December?). --Jarekt (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Not just bots. As I suggested many months ago on commons, you can select the group of autopatrolled (expert) users on commons with a decent activity on wikidata, and the group of wikidata users with decent number of upload (or edits) on commons and sent them a mass message with a link to a help page that describes the final "rules" on the issue (or other tools for image maintenance, the idea was proposed firstly to inform about tools such as wdlist or wikishootme). This way you create a soft but diffuse expertise to users who don't visit village pump pages, instead of a simple "vertical teaching.". I can prepare a targeted list for a mass message as soon as the guidelines or the working patterns are clear.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as someone with very little experience on Commons—and for whom our principal involvement with Wikidata is in creation of interwiki links—let me say that for people like me, the main thing is that for what we do nothing should change. If you start breaking that, or making things much more complicated, we'll have a problem. Otherwise, we should be good. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to see a discussion about this happening. I'm currently at Wikimania sitting next to Lydia. Maybe other people are here too so we can have a chat in person? My 2 cents: Quite some time ago I wrote C:User:Multichill/Next generation categories. With Wikidata and arbitrary access on Commons this comes closer. What I would like to see on a category is that I just put a template on it and the template:

  • Fetches the sitelinks to the relevant Wikipedia articles
  • Generates an introduction in the languages relevant to me

Looks like the fetching of sitelinks is already done. See for example c:Category:Janskerk, Haarlem. Generation of short introductions based on description and label should be quite easy to add. Even nicer would be to have the introduction being based on the introduction of the Wikipedia article. Currently that is only possible by using a bot. Talking about bots. We currently have over a million items that have a Commons category (P373) link and are not instance of (P31) -> Wikimedia category (Q4167836). We could use that data to have a bot on Commons add templates to these categories so they link back to the right item and show the relevant information. c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata still seems to be a bit rough and no intro is generated. What should we do here? Commons has plenty of intersection categories like Commons:Category:Churches in Haarlem. Would be nice to make use of category combines topics (P971) or have the possibility to pass multiple Q numbers to the template. If we set this all up properly, I'm confident we can link most categories on Commons to the relevant Wikipedia articles. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Whereas what I would really like is to add a link at Wikidata and have that link (plus any sitelinks) show up on Commons almost immediately, like happens with pages on any other project. I don't want to have to edit Commons to create links and I definitely don't want to have to create links in multiple places. - Nikki (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Nikki, we are on the same page here. I would also like not to have to add q-codes to Commons the way we have to at the moment. The solution with mirror category and article items relies on keeping both items in perfect synch, so it does require edits in multiple places. so when someone renames category on commons than it has to be changed in both article and category item. But at least this synchronization is done within wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Multichill, I think the time for the introduction will come, if we can generate Wikidata based Creator template with just a q-code we could add those to all people categories, etc. Similarly once we rewrite Creator, Institution, Artwork and Book templates to pull info from Wikidata, we can use them as well. For now I am trying to come up with a way to look-up q-codes without specifying them, like you had to do in c:Category:Janskerk, Haarlem. I know bots can copy them from Commons category (P373) to commons categories, but than someone needs to maintain them so they stay in synch. A better solution would be to be able to look up the q-codes, either by bots creating items for many commons categories, or by wikibase software change to allow looking up q-codes of items that links to you with specific property, the way you can look up q-code of item that links to you through a sitelink right now. I am not at Wikimania, but please see if people participating can discuss some of those options. The current mess of a sitelinks to Commons have to be fixed before they are usable, or they can be ignored if items can be looked up by property links. --Jarekt (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Reminder that the script Wikidata:Tools/User_scripts#wdcat.js exists, which automatically displays a Wikidata article-item link on a Commons cat if possible. Is it the sort of thing you are looking for? Jheald (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes exactly, but something I can call from LUA. --Jarekt (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is example why embedding q-codes at Commons is bad: I added q-code Q1066592 to c:Creator:Charles de Moreau on January 22, 2013‎; on 30 December 2013 Q1066592 was deleted, but nobody removed it from the creator page. Same with c:Creator:Master of Bellaert linking to Q18516705. That is why I would rather find a way to all creator and institution templates to detect the item q-code instead of storing it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

(self-solved) Find a protected area that is in Q1206 or any subdivision thereof[edit]

I am looking to query all Nature Protected Areas (Naturschutzgebiete, Naturschutzgebiet (Q759421)) that are within (located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)) the german State of Saxony-Anhalt (Saxony-Anhalt (Q1206)), or any subdivision thereof.

My query

#Naturschutzgebiete in Sachsen-Anhalt
SELECT ?nrLabel ?nrDescription ?website ?coord ?WDPA_id ?_image WHERE {
  ?nr (wdt:P31/wdt:P279*) wd:Q759421.
  ?nr wdt:P131 wd:Q1206.
  ?nr wdt:P625 ?coord.
  OPTIONAL { ?nr wdt:P856 ?website. }
  OPTIONAL { ?nr wdt:P809 ?WDPA_id. }
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "de". }
  OPTIONAL { ?nr wdt:P18 ?_image. }

, [2], runs fine, but it only finds direct children of Q1206. Now, there are Naturschutzgebiete which are not directly placed under the state, but under a subdivision of Q1206, for example "Fenn", Q16831344, is in Q7082 (Town of Stendal), which is in Q6057 (District of Stendal), which then is in Q1206 (State of Saxony-Anhalt).

How can I find those objects that are in Saxony-Anhalt (Q1206), when they are so only transitively? --Tbhgeo (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, it's
?nr wdt:P131* wd:Q1206.

--Tbhgeo (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tbhgeo: in addition, maybe you want to have a look at de:Benutzer:Holger1959/DE-ST. Holger1959 (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"subclass of" / "superclass of" v. "broader" / "narrower"[edit]

Some classification schemes (including LoC) use "broader" and "narrower" to classify related topics at broader & narrower levels of abstraction.

Others use "subclass" / "superclass" to indicate absoluet inclusion of a topic or concept within a parent or child topic.

Do we need both of these as WD properties? Should we convert all "broader"/"narrower" to "subclass" properties?

I'm currently working with a dataset that makes use of "broader" & "narrower" to capture its network of concept-relationships. Thanks! Sj (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We use "subclass" to indicate that a class of elements is a subset of a more general one. To capture conceptual abstraction we however use instance of (P31) in the sense explained in Help:Classification and en:metaclass (semantic web). Broader/narrower may serve another purpose, maybe classify body of knowledges, but we're also discussing if they are subclasses of each other in an abstract level : a science is a set of practices and a set of knowledge, a more specific science is a subset of those practices and knowledge. A religion is a set of dogmas and a set of cults, a subreligion may add its own dogmas and practices. This kind of relationships can be expressed using "instance" and "subclass". author  TomT0m / talk page 16:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Weird, I couldn't find creation discussions for no label (P2933) and no label (P2934). -- LaddΩ chat ;) 16:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
@legoktm: anything to say about that creation ? author  TomT0m / talk page 17:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I responded on WD:AN. Apologies for the drama. Legoktm (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Legoktm: Are you shitting me? We just had a very disruptive discussion regarding cites. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Um, I honestly don't understand why you're so upset about this. Legoktm (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's because there is non, Laddo. --Izno (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Same situation with no label (P2932), regarding which Legoktm wrote here "Hacking on importing EWPHP data into Wikidata at Wikimania with sj. Going to skip the 7 day waiting period so we can work on modeling the data in a smaller environment before doing a large thing". Taking this to WD:AN. Discussion on this can be continued there. Let's focus here on whether "broader" and "narrower" have any merit to them, shall we? --Yair rand (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers, I'll see how this works with subclass of (P279). Yes, a group of us were sitting down @ a hackathon and trying to map a page from an existing structured reference work into WD; sorry if this contributed to any property drama. I'll take comments on this subthread to the page Yair linked. Sj (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
+1. I think subclass of (P279) tends to work quite well for bodies of knowledge and religions and such. There still might be room for a separate "narrower" property, but I can't think of any examples where that would be necessary atm. --Yair rand (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
In the controlled vocabulary sense, "broader" and "narrower" refer to 3 different kinds of hierarchical relations: (1) generic (= subclass), (2) Instantial (= instance of), (3) partitive (= part of). The more specific terms should be used in wikidata - and we already have all of these, so there should be no need for new terms for this purpose. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I most often run across "broader" and "narrower" in the sense of general scope of meaning. I feel these are often more flexible than "subclass". For example, scottish kilt is definitely a subclass of kilt; it is narrower than traditional scottish garb. I am less clear on whether it is a subclass of traditional scottish garb. Sj (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
if an instance of "traditional scottish garb" is a piece of clothing or otherwise a physical object of some sort, then the subclass relation is the right one. If "garb" instead is referring to a style of fashion, then "part of" probably makes more sense. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd support introduction of "broader" property as super-property of subclass of (P279), instance of (P31), and part of (P361) if some examples are provided. Better a more general such as "broader" than misuse of the more specific properties. -- JakobVoss (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

FIFA World Cups and UEFA European Football Championships[edit]

Who wants to help filling this table? I wrote this already here nine days ago, but it's in the archive now. Some pings: @Mippzon, Tubezlob, Edgars2007, Adert: --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've done a few now :) More needed though. //Mippzon (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jobu0101: All done now I think! //Mippzon (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mippzon: Thank you! That's great. The next step would be to enter the participants. Here are the Championships where some (currently all) are missing: [3]. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Houston we have a problem :) UEFA Euro 2004 (Q102920) don't use participant (P710) but participating teams (P1923) --ValterVB (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well. This property is barely used. Even the given example in Property talk:P1923, namely "2014 FIFA World Cup Final (Q15926885) → Argentina national football team (Q79800)", is not applied in 2014 FIFA World Cup Final (Q15926885). Instead property participant (P710) is used. But it seems that participating teams (P1923) is the correct property. We will have to change a lot. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
For learning purposes I could write some code lines in Python for that conversion. Not now, though (Python newbie has pretty large Python to-do-list :) ). --Edgars2007 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the updated query. I'm changing the property. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you in particular ValterVB for entering all those teams. --Jobu0101 (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of Antarctic Treaty area (Q21590062) as a country (P17)[edit]

There are several hundred Wikidata items that have country (P17) set to Antarctic Treaty area (Q21590062), even though Antarctic Treaty area is not a country. Would anyone object if I remove these claims and replace them with continent (P30) Antarctica (Q51) instead? Kaldari (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: See Property talk:P17#P17 in Antarctica why we started to use this item! All items with this statement is not on the continent of Antarctica here! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like people switched the country claim from various other countries to Antarctic Treaty area. While this fixes the NPOV issue, it introduces a factual inaccuracy, as Antarctic Treaty area isn't a country. Can't we just agree to not use any country claims for things in Antarctica (since there aren't any countries there)? This seems like a no-brainer. Kaldari (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Replacing P17:"Antarctic Treaty area" with P17:"novalue" is probably better than just removing it. Personally, I have no problems with using "Antarctic Treaty area" as a country. "Country" is a surprisingly difficult subject to define. Present day "England" and "Wales" are considered countries in the English language, but not always in any other language. Are both "The kingdom of Netherlands" and "Netherlands" countries? Are all of "The kingdom of Denmark", "Denmark" and "Rigsfællesskabet" countries? Was "Sweden-Norway" a country? Is "Stato della Città del Vaticano" a country? Was "Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation" a country? Pinging Jura1 and Nikki who participated in the above linked discussion. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I still think (as I said before) that Antarctic Treaty area should not be used as a country and that if we really think we need a country statement, novalue would be the right thing to use. I think the other examples you list are completely different to the situation in Antarctica. Whether to use "Antarctic Treaty area" as a country is more like asking whether we should create "Convention on the High Seas area" or "Outer Space Treaty area" to use as the country for everything in international waters or outer space respectively. - Nikki (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Antarctic Treaty area is definitely not a country. It has no autonomy, no government, no citizens. If Antarctic Treaty area were a country, Pacific Ocean (Q98) and Moon (Q405) would probably qualify as countries as well. It sounds like "no value" is the best solution. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with defining Roller Coaster properties[edit]

I've started Wikidata:WikiProject Roller Coasters and I'm now trying to define the properties that could be used for defining a specific roller coaster (Q204832) View with Reasonator See with SQID. There are many that I'm unsure of and hope for some guidance from the community. I've started to go through the template Template:Infobox roller coaster (Q10980443) View with Reasonator See with SQID and tried to find some of the parameters here.

  • Status - indicates whether the ride is in operation or not. Could be like "open" or "closed".
  • Track type - This could be something like Out and back roller coaster (Q2796445) View with Reasonator See with SQID, Twister, Moebius Loop, Terrain etc. according to the existing templates.
  • Lift type - Coasters uses different methods of lifting the carts in the beginning of the track. Could be a chain lift or hydraulic launch track etc.
  • Height - probably means the highest point of the coaster.
  • Drop - the height of the highest drop.
  • Length - the length of the track.
  • Speed - which probably is top speed.
  • Number of inversions - the number of track elements that differs from "normal track". For instance loops or corkscrews.
  • Ride duration - how long it takes to ride the coaster. Is duration (P2047) [SQID] good here?
  • Drop angle - the highest angle of a drop.
  • Capacity - number of riders per hour.

There are probably a bunch of more properties, but those seems to be the most common ones. Are there already suitable properties on Wikidata that could be used, or do we need to create new ones? //Mippzon (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

My initial thoughts:
I would be more inclined to do something like "has part: drop" with qualifiers for the height and angle. I agree on needing a new property for the angle (which could possibly be more generic as long as it's clear where the angle is measured from). That seems better if there are multiple drops and it also means that people can't accidentally end up with the wrong height if they don't check for qualifiers. Wouldn't there be a lift for each drop? - Nikki (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Thanks for your input! I'm transferring the most obvious ones, like height, length and duration to the project page. //Mippzon (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
yes, "has part: drop" with qualifiers is a better formation that my initial thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: That makes sense! Then we just need to define a new object that describes the drop itself, so that it could be added as "has part". I could not find any suitable ones in my searches. //Mippzon (talk) 20:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Capacity" (meaning number of riders per hour) now proposed as "throughput" at Wikidata:Property proposal/throughput. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


Recently several items (e.g. Q24649028, Q24791791) have been created with labels and descriptions in a language with the code "Español", not "es". How does this happen and who wants to ind and remove them? --YMS (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how it happens but I've posted on Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team#.22Espa.C3.B1ol.22_being_used_as_a_language_code to let the developers know. [4] and [5] seem to work to find existing ones. - Nikki (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
There are also labels in "indonesia" and "Türkçe". The issue is tracked on phabricator since 2012. --Pasleim (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I suspect it being regression caused by fixing phab:T115792 which changed the input on Special:NewItem (so that it allows saving terms invalid languages). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I have created a new task for the issue @ T138725 ·addshore· talk to me! 15:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Frivolous subclasses[edit]

Hoi, I have noticed that a lot of subclasses have been added that make Wikidata less useful particularly for the majority of the 300 languages that Wikidata supports. It is NOT a good idea to have subclasses like "APA award". I blogged about it. I think that all such items need to be removed. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
what part? That is will make the labelisation of Wikidata that much harder? Really? Or that there is a point to "APA award" because I do not see it at all. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this is a matter for Wikidata:WikiProject_Ontology - there has been considerable discussion about the nature of classes in wikidata but this sounds like another perspective on the issue that would be useful. Can you take this discussion there? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
This makes Wikidata easier to edit, for example to add an APA award you just have one statement to use. Plus the actual used labels still have to be translated, this just maybe add one label to translate compared to several awards. This is really not much work. Plus the statements on the class are self explanatory. It's totally possible to set up a bot that is coded to automatically add labels for those kind of classes : if the class is of the approriate (sub)type and has a statement like
subject > has quality (P1552) [SQID] < value >
conferred by (P1027) [SQID] < some organisation >
then add a label "some organisation award". The "instance of" award claim you added is semantically ambiguous : is award the object given in the ceremony ? Then it's certainly not a class. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Really, not much work? A bot could do the work? Really? Have you considered that you are talking about 300+ languages 300 times a bot that has to be programmed to follow the grammar rules that Wikidata does NOT support. You are so wrong. Such an item can be understood from statements and consequently it is not necessary at all. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
If it's so useless, what's the urge to translate it ? It appears anyway in just a few statements and will likely never make it up to the item that must be translated list like Terminator one. It has also a practical use when it's known that the person recieved an award from APA but the exact one is not known from this user. I see this kind of statements sometimes. There is also cases in which the organisation classifies its own awards into different types. Then those kind of items are needed to reflect that classification. If you want an example I can exhibit some - I think ACM awards are classified, for example, need to verify. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
You contradict yourself. APA award is just one of a class of items that we all need to lose. When you consider it to be of no value in most languages what is the point of having it in any language? Also when an award is only known by its provider, what prove do we have that it has been given? Really bad rubbish needs to be gotten rid off. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Need some help at Guidelines for external relationships[edit]

see Help:Statements/Guidelines for external relationships  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krauss (talk • contribs).

What's your goal with this page? To document existing relationships to help people adding statements from external sources so they will know the right wikidata properties to use? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding missing data for Wikivoyage quickbar[edit]

Hello everyone,

All Wikivoyage articles with Template:Quickbar (Q14395495) are now using only data from Wikidata (except location maps). Please help with adding missing information to the Wikidata items connected to the pages in en:voy:Category:Quickbar with missing information. The required properties are:

Thank you, -- T.seppelt (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I added a population size to Croatia (Q224). I noticed however that it was given at en:voy:Croatia as if it was the 2010 population size, while the given number is taken from the 2011 census. How come? Lymantria (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I solved this problem. Thank you, -- T.seppelt (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
For a summary, see Wikidata:Wikivoyage/Lists/Quickbar.
--- Jura 04:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiObject project proposal[edit]

Hi, how about a wikipedia about objects?

Instead of generic articles of , for example, "Ballpoint pen" or "Bic cristal" it would be "Ballpoint pen Bic cristal 2014"

Doing these for millions of objects would allow people to have an open, free, universal and central place to refer specific objects.

Some possible applications:[edit]

  • Creating neutral and standard lists: Nowadays if anyone create, for example, a tutorial for building something (DIY projects, receipts, ...) they have to link all items to a comercial or no-neutral web which could change its url in the future or redirect it to adds or whatever. Lists could be created in external webpages linking wikimedia objects webpage or/and could be created as category pages in Wikipedia. For example, currently, article lists cars which won COTY award but not links to the specific car (AUDI A3 Hatchback 2012 - Present) but generic serie (Audi A3). The good thing at this point it's that to start creating object lists only item name is necessary, no infoboxes or description needed.
  • Universal repository for inventories: Lot of business fill their inventories again and again with same data ("cardboard box 50x30x15", "step by step nema motor 17", ... ) they should be able to import this data from a open website with their corresponding info like GTIN , SKU , Barcode... and more in the future weight, size, ...
  • Encourage Recycling and Reutilitation: Imagine if we use wikidata properties ( like "has part" and "part of" , people will find other uses for objects, or discover were to find
  • Social activism and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Companies have info and metrics about their costumers (habits, location, ...) why not costumers have info about companies products, who manufacture what?, what products have a good carbon footprint?, what products have been retired from some problem?, what are Fair Trade?. This also can moved companies do better.

Very rough roadmap:[edit]

  1. At the very begining, using wikidata infrestructure, objects would only have common info like "name", " image", "related links" (datasheets?), GTIN. First use cases could be doing lists or grouping objects by categories.
  2. Step by step new fields could be added like "manufacturer" , "tags", ...
  3. A separated website could be created. isn't availiabe so url could be something like
  4. In a long-term in order to explote all the possibilities of this project more complex fields and relations would have to be managed, like for example "fridges with energy class A+++ and width less than 80 cm", which could be easy if all always were similar but nothing further from reality A friend of mine and me tried to build a demo version in an home-made apache cassandra cluster four years ago, but we don't have enough resources and knowledge for that.


In my humble opinion, problem with wikipedia funding It's that most part of its users don't see culture as a need (sorry for that, I am a sporadic donor). In Wikiobject case I think it could rather be different.

If part of companies business lies on this project, companies will be very inclined to donate to improve performace, usability, etc.. maybe similar to what happens in Linux.

Where came this need from? Data needed for some software to run, product vissibility, costumer requests, etc ... , no advertisement needed, It could be a need and standart.

I trully believe that world need something like this, and the correct people to do it, to warranty openness and independence, are you.

thanks for your time and attention,


Qupro (talk) 14:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


I think your use of the term "object" here is not quite correct. What you are proposing is a finer granularity than wikidata currently offers, but not to create a database of every instance of every car ever made (indexed by Vehicle Identification Number) or every instance of every ball point pen (does each pen get a unique serial number) or similarly for other consumer products. Given that every known living species or domestic variety is eligible for a wikidata item, I suppose it wouldn't be crazy to extend that to every kind of manufactured product as well. That is, wikidata may already be able to do what you want if WD:N is suitably accommodating. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Most pens and other small, quickly consumed items usually have a batch number (as in, a unique number for a batch of objects). That said, the user seems to think Wikidata is Wikipedia, which it is not. --Izno (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think he is asking an item for "every car ever made", he is asking for an item for "every model of car ever made" (or fridge, or pen or whatever). That is more than the very inclusive enwikipedia (although we do have a lot of items about cameras or phones), but not far away than the range of granularity of wikidata. Items of that type have production identifiers I guess. Also even if he "seems to think Wikidata is Wikipedia" (which is not true, IMHO), he is posing a question that relates to wikidata. He is talking of a lot of things in a wider perspective, and with limited knowledge, and that creates confusion, but in the end he wants to know if a Wikidata:WikiProject can be created for "objects"... or something we could define at least as "industrial products". Whatever he is hoping for the future, which is no interest for wikidata, this step is worth at least discussing. I am not an expert, but at least discussing what is the granularity and if properties such as "length" for an industrial products are ok is "interesting".--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I refer model name not every object of these model or batch that was produced. For example "Dell XPS 13 2015 (9343) Laptop", only one wikidata item for this not an item for every laptop of this model (serial number) neither batch. I thought in wikidata instead of wikipedia because more interesting object information would be , at least at the begining, related with wikidata statements rather than with wikipedia descriptions. My doubt is if the wikidata community see this idea viable, well-focused, interesting, etc... Qupro (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought Wikidata was aiming to provide knowledge and suddenly I have the impression that WD will finish as a Walmart's catalog (change walmart by any other big commercial stores). Snipre (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Object information is also knowledge, for instance imagine webs like, they are continuously refering specfic object models to show people to make things. A good problem example could be this wikipage for building a 3d printer which is refering to one of the objects needed, a stepper motor,, why we fill and refill same information (current, power, ...) over thounsand of webs when it is always the same and could be referred? I understand that the dimension of the project is eneourmous but I am only asking if wikidata is the place for plant the seed. I dont believe in a private/commercial solution for this. Qupro (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
We have plenty of corporate and commercial things on wikidata, as well as things in traditional academic domains, just as we do in wikipedia. Qupro has a good specific example. @Qupro: one issue with wikidata is the CC-0 nature of the database; do you have some example source datasets with this kind of data that could be imported without violating license restrictions? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I 'm not sure to what extent CC-0 would be a problem, I think that companies should see an advantage in being listed in webs and wikidata. Anyway we can go safe and start with Open Source Hardware objects like arduino/genuino (, and components that even have free datasheets to download. Open Source Hardware Community share a lot of things with wikidata community and they probably be interesed too, I'm gonna to ask some of them. Build up another bridge between both could be nice. Other option could be use antiques with no actual manufacturers, I have just google "antique clocks models" and first result is a beginning. But I really think that if people use this "WikiObjectsData" companies would prefer be that not be in. Qupro (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I talked with open source hardware community members and also see a great potencial in this. One of them is working in a Open Source prototyping board ( so I created two example wikidata items releated with it: the open source prototype board itself ( and one of its components, a SMD resistance ( IMHO Wikidata is the best host for this idea. Also It already have propierties like "connector (P2935)" , "power consumed (P2791)", "source code repository (P1324)", "sponsor (P859)", "manufacturer (P176)", these two last ones could may companies contributors and proclive too appear here and to opensource data. I see a lot possibilities, problems , solutions , etc, but i don't know if this is the place to expand the conversation.Qupro (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Qupro: This sounds great - you might want to start a "WikiProject" to focus discussion on, for example, the needs of open source hardware. Particularly if some new properties need to be proposed, it's a good place to review the existing properties and what you need. See the list of Wikidata:WikiProjects - linked from the Community Portal and look at how those have been set up and structured. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Qupro: the main funnel here are human resources. If you create a new wikidata project I would be happy to show it to wikipedia local science, engineering and technology projects, and maybe village pumps if it's not enough. I hope you can find a sufficient number of volunteers. I can't be one of them, not my field... I can show this conversation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your tips @ArthurPSmith: and @Alexmar983:. I move all the information and discussion to Wikidata:WikiProject_Objects and find an incredible releated project Wikidata:WikiProject_Electronic_Components I will try to contact with them, I am not used to user talk pages yet.Qupro (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
You should contact the main author User:Manta Ray DeeJay, who is probably fr-N so at least you have two language. If you know how to contact any other community off-wiki, help yourself. IMHO you can try some merge in a single project even if new volunteers arrive. Projects are just containers, talks can be used to host different types of specific thread. I would encourage very specific projects only after a while.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Copa América[edit]

Like FIFA World Cups and UEFA European Football Championships, only Copa América. See QUERY. Much to do here! --Jobu0101 (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #215[edit]

Gadget for adding instances[edit]

I would like to add "instance of: josei manga magazine (Q24826340)" to all articles in ja:Category:女性漫画雑誌. Is there a gadget I could use or do I have to do it manually? Thanks a lot for your help. --Shikeishu (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

You may use this tool (WiDaR authentication required). Kwj2772 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! ---Shikeishu (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Rounding when uncertainty over 10 is given[edit]

I recently added molar volume (P2807) to 2-methyloctane (Q2813823) with 547±17 cm³/mol as a value and the WD mechanism displays it as a 550±20 cm³/mol. It's not correct, it's just wrong. This value is not 530–570, but 530–564 – that's how it should be displayed. Is there any way to correct this? ∼Wostr (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

This is phab:T95425. As I understand it, the data is stored correctly and is only being displayed incorrectly, so once the ticket is fixed, the existing data should display properly. I don't think there's anything we can do until then though. - Nikki (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for information. ∼Wostr (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese case[edit]

We have two items for Kitty Genovese: Kitty Genovese (Q238128) and Murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392).

At first glance, they may look as different things: first one is about person (victim), and second one is about event (murder).

However, it appears that (unlike for example Mozart, who is notable for his music and for his death) Kitty Genovese is notable (for Wikipedia, of course) only for her death (its circumstances and consequences). Thus, de facto, all Wikipedia articles (11 in first item and 7 in second item) are about her death.

You can notice that no language has articles in both items. I.e. 18 languages are split between these two items (11+7) without intersections.

Is there any way to handle this? Or can nothing be done without rewriting all 11 articles in Kitty Genovese (Q238128)?

Sasha1024 (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You could add interwikis locally in the article.
--- Jura 05:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I would definitely move all the wikilinks in one of the items. Usually I would go for the more general item (because even if the articles are mostly talking about her death, I guess they must/might give one or two informations about the victim).--Melderick (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend both, Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items is relevant I think. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Make a local LUA module in Wikipedia to fetch the remaining interlanguage links from the other item. Multichill (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I added all items from Murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) to Kitty Genovese (Q238128) by creating or using existing redirect pages (like en:Kitty Genovese). Sadly, I can't do the opposite (add all items from Kitty Genovese (Q238128) to Murder of Kitty Genovese (Q18341392) by creating or using existing redirect pages like ru:Убийство Китти Дженовезе), because I don't know how to say "murder of [smbd]" on all these languages. Sasha1024 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you might have misunderstood our comments.
--- Jura 04:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Why? IMO I understood everything correctly:
  • Adding interwikis locally (as proposed by Jura) is a no way. There are to many articles (18), adding interwikis in all of them is quite annoying... Especially that this work would need to be redone every time some new translation is created.
  • Merging items (as proposed by Melderick) was actually my original movement (rejected by Jklamo) -- but then I realised that it's wrong way.
  • Thus I did like recommended here (thanks Sjoerd de Bruin for the link).
Do you think I did smth wrong? Sasha1024 (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"Wiktionary" missing from Wikipedia's left panel's section "In other projects"?[edit]

I had a question on w:Talk:Main_Page and someone suggested I try at WikiData.

Copied here is (almost) the original post:

On Wikipedia's Main Page's leftmost side, between "Print/export" and "Languages", it has an "In other projects" section listing almost all of Wikipedia's sister projects, except for MediaWiki and Wiktionary. (However, those two are included at the bottom of Wikipedia's Main Page under "Wikipedia's sister projects", with all the others.)
I think I understand why MediaWiki is not listed on the left panel's "In other projects", but why is Wiktionary not listed there, even though it also has a "Main Page"?
Just curious, I'm not really suggesting any changes. Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I think those links are handled on Wikidata, so you could add it over there. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

However, I haven't been able to find where or which talk page addresses this. Does anyone have any advice? Thank you:) Zeniff (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development?
--- Jura 03:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@ZeniffMartineau: First off, MediaWiki is now listed in "Other projects" and its pages are included here. The problem with interwiki links in Wiktionary is what they mean: with other projects (e.g. Wikipedia) an interwiki link points readers to an article on the same idea in each target language. In Wiktionary, an interwiki link points to the same term but it would also be desirable to have interwiki links between definitions as well. So, for instance, if you are reading the entry at "wikt:en:book#English" you may want to read about the term "book" in Spanish at "wikt:es:book#Inglés" but you may also want to know about the idea of a book at "wikt:es:libro#Español". Does that make sense? How to handle that is under discussion now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
So the issue applies even though to some users (ones like me who didn't know the situation) it "looks like" only a link from Wikipedia's Main Page to Wiktionary's Main Page? So, if I understand correctly, the way to do it is still under discussion, so that's why the link is not there, yet? And I think that means since the "sister projects" section at the bottom of Wikipedia only uses a template with wikilinks, and not Wikidata, that's why it can link to Wiktionary, I guess?
Also, I can see Mediawiki listed in "Other projects" on Wikidata's Main Page as you said, but I still can't see it listed in Wikipedia's same section.
Sorry if I misunderstood. Thank you for explaining:) Zeniff (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): On a somewhat related note, who's the linguist mentioned in this section of last week's summary and what issues did this linguist suggest we actually have to address in the proposal? None of the subpages and talk pages in Wikidata:Wiktionary seem to have been updated in the last month and so I'm not sure about the proposal's current state. Mahir256 (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Net worth estimations[edit]

I would like to hear your opinions about adding estimations from Forbes' Forbes list of billionaires (Q493078) and or sites like Rich Celebs (Q24043951) at net worth estimate (P2218). IMHO it should not be possible to add properties like P2218 without giving any source.--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This is in fact one of the issues in the recently opened RFC on verifiability. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


Now we have this item.--GZWDer (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Great.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Fusion problems[edit]

Can someone fusion en:Category:Imaging (Q6176702) with de:Kategorie:Bildgebendes Verfahren (Q8907335) ? 21:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Merge.
--- Jura 04:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand that Help. 11:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

What part? Please comment on its talk page on the parts that are unclear.
--- Jura 11:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried it and it doesn't function, so maybe you can help and do it. 11:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:Merge (or one of its translations) stating which steps you tried and where you failed. This will allow to improve the help page.
--- Jura 11:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There comes the answer "The link dewiki:Kategorie:Bildgebendes Verfahren is already used by item Q8907335. You may remove it from Q8907335 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." 11:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


Hey! There is a new cool project launched! #100wikidatadays is a personal challenge, in which a person aims at the creation or reconstruction of (at least) one template (e.g. infobox) which gets all or almost all its information from Wikidata in 100 days in a row. The general idea and the rules follow the idea of the 100wikidays. The idea was discussed at Wikimania 2016.

Feel free to join! --Lingveno (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Merging problems[edit]

Can someone merging en:Category:Eurozone (Q8950770) with de:Kategorie:Europäische Währungsunion (Q8950770) ? -- 11:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Merge.
--- Jura 11:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand that help. 11:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

There is this answer:

"The link enwiki:Category:Eurozone is already used by item Q7130479. You may remove it from Q7130479 if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic. " 11:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See previous section, please don't create countless sections on the same topic.
--- Jura 11:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
i dont understand, what do you mean with "previous section" ? Why is there no translation in German language, so i could better unterstand the merging process ? 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to say the whole merging process is too complicated for "normal" users. 11:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The previous section is at #Fusion_problems.
The German translation of the help page is at Help:Merge/de.
If you don't understand the English error message, please try Wikidata:Forum.
--- Jura 11:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Temporary outage of adding statements[edit]

It was impossible to add any statements to items from 19:00± till 19:37 (both UTC) due to a bug that appeared after deployment of new software. More information on Phabricator, please check your bot runs for missing data. We are sorry for any inconvenience caused. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Again: HSV and HSL[edit]

HSV and HSL are different color spaces. But they are a bit similar, so many languages describe them in single article (e.g. en:HSV and HSL). Looks like typical WD:Bonnie and Clyde, so theoretically there should be 3 items: one for "HSV", one for "HSL" and one for "HSV and HSL".

But currently there are only two wikidata items: one for "HSL" (ok!) and other for mix of "HSV and HSL" and "HSV". So, theoretically we should split the latter item into separate items for "HSV and HSL" and for "HSV". The problem is a bit harder than it looks because some of wikipedia articles in the item under question have confusing titles (e.g. German article seems to address both HSV and HSL -- and German wikipedia has no separate article for HSL -- but the article title is "HSV-Farbraum").

Another issue is that we'll break linkage. I.e. from languages that have single "HSV and HSL" article (e.g. English) there will be no links to 12 languages that have separate "HSV" and "HSL" articles (e.g. Russian).


  1. should we go pedantic and split confusing Q376492 into separate "HSV and HSL" and "HSV" wikidata items (with breaking some linkage, e.g. there will be no link from English wikipedia to Russian wikipedia)...
  2. ... or should we leave it as is (non-ideal wikidata structure but more comfortable for wikipedia users)


Question is merely theoretical. I'm interested not in HSV/HSL problem itself, but in recipe of what to do in such cases. (I initially came from wikipedia to merge this, but was told that just merge is invalid solution, because wikidata is now smth more that tool for making interwikis. And now I see similar case, where items "HSV and HSL" and "HSV" are already merged. So, should we split, or better leave it as is?)

Sasha1024 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "tools for interwiki". Take a look at Module:Interwiki (Q20819069). It is used to get interwiki between Wikipedia-pages that do not share items at Wikidata. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
To make statements about "HSV" and "HSL", you'd need two items. To provide interwikis for articles that cover both, you need a third one.
--- Jura 10:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I understand this. But the question is: does wikidata community considers it reasonable to split wikidata items in such case, or better "not to touch it while it works as is"? Sasha1024 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the unhelpful comments above (or at least I don't understand how Module:Interwiki (Q20819069) works, perhaps Sasha1024 can explain how to use it?) Anyway, yes, it is reasonable to split items in such cases as a wikidata item really should be about one thing that is the same across languages, not two different things depending on the language. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: It was I who proposed the Module:Interwiki above. In sv:Erik och Erik it is added by the help of sv:Template:Interwiki extra. The Swedish article about two kings therefor have interwiki both from Eric and Eric (Q15077597) and Eric the Pagan (Q1251277). In this example, the Swedish article has interwiki to cs:, es:, fi:, hu:, it:, lv:, nl:, no:, pl:, pt:, ru:, sh: and uk: even if the item about this pair of kings has sitelinks to only four languages. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very nice. So to use it in this case, each wiki article in a given language that had "HSV and HSL" would need that template to link the wikidata ids for the "HSV" and "HSL" items? And conversely each wiki article in a language that was just "HSV" ought to add the "HSV and HSL" item via the same template? That seems a little clunky but I guess it could work. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
It is each projects decision to use it or not. The advantage compared with adding manual old style interwiki (ie: [[xyz:HSL]]) is that it does not confuses the bots who crawl over the wikis to find potential merges. It also updates automagically when new sitelinks are added or removed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, en:Template:Interwiki_extra (based on en:Module:Interwiki) is really very useful template. Although, I'd prefer to have some special property in wikidata (i.e. that setting "secondary interwiki source" property of HSV and HSL (Q376492) to value HSL (Q14032191) would make every wikipedia article in the former to receive interwikis from both) -- in this case there will be no need to update every wikipedia article in some wikidata item (it would be just enough to assign wikidata property once). Another issue is that en:Template:Interwiki_extra and en:Module:Interwiki are not currently present in every wikipedia site. However, en:Template:Interwiki_extra and en:Module:Interwiki are really useful. Sasha1024 (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Innocent bystander, don't you know: are there some plans to implement such thing (I mean, reserved property as I described above) in wikidata? Or, maybe it already exists? Sasha1024 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Something like what you suggest has been proposed under WD:XLINK (which I now notice describes Innocent bystander's module!). See also a recent discussion and proposal for development. However I don't think there's been a proposal for a specific property for this purpose; I like that idea. It would need support from the development team to roll it out to all the different linked wikipedias but maybe that would be a good route to pursue? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith, Sasha1024: On svwiki, this template/module has mainly been used by a group of users who edits disambigs. There is no semantic relation between the disambig-items about "Freedom" and the disambig-item about "Frihet". But no property should probably connect those two items here at Wikidata. In the Swedish language, that connection makes some sense, otherwise not. The module, as I first wrote it, uses said to be the same as (P460) when no qid-parameter is added. The "has part"-property could probably be used in the same way here. Wikisource has a tradition of exceptions from the 1:1-rule for interwiki and has instead adopted a tree of "editions/edition of"-relations.
I now go on vacation for a few days, so I will probably not respond very quickly to new posts here until next week! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith:, yes, I'm sure it's good route to pursue (global linking). At least, this is one of features I want to see (I mean: in addition, not instead of en:Template:Interwiki_extra and other local linking features).
What I dislike about WD:XLINK (I read about it after last my post, but it didn't changed my opinion a lot): first, despite all automation, WD:XLINK is still local linking (i.e. it requires template to be used on specific sites); second, it tries to benefit from existing properties (subclass-of, etc), but IMHO no existing property should bring interwikis in 100% cases; third, there's something said about acyclicity in documentation, but in my vision both "HSV and HSL" can take secondary interwikis from "HSV", and "HSV" can take secondary interwikis "HSV and HSL". So, while WD:XLINK has its use cases, it's not what I wanted (my idea is (1) global (wikidata-level), (2) purely technical (not reusing semantic properties), (3) possibly cyclic (but not recursive)). Sasha1024 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WiFi hotspots[edit]

Greetings from a noob!

I'm in a team creating an app which among other things, will guide users to WiFi hotspots - initially in South Africa, but potentially globally. It's a nonprofit (free as in beer as well as speech) project. As a longtime lurker on the Wikidata mailing list, I was the one to suggest using that as our repository but it means the rest of the team expects me to take the lead in this. We currently have, or have access to, a few local data sets. Looking around it seems like I'll be having quite a steep learning curve so I'm hoping for some guidance.

Thanks, Michael.Michaelgraaf (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting to put the data into Wikidata itself, or to create your own repository using your own copy of the software Wikidata uses? I'm not sure whether Wikidata itself would be the right place for this because a wifi hotspot would be unlikely to meet our notability requirements. Have you looked at OSM? They have tags for internet access (see osmwiki:Key:internet access) and it seems like a natural choice if your aim is to guide people to them. If you want to add the data to Wikidata itself or to OSM, note that you would need to make sure the data you have is available under a compatible license (Wikidata is CC0, OSM is ODbL). - Nikki (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Tutorial Wikidata Infoboxes[edit]

I finally started working on , the community wishlist task to create a very readable Wikidata infobox tutorial. I started with the page here (Wikidata:Infobox Tutorial) and would be grateful for any helpful comments or additions. If you have a lot of experience with this, I would also appreciate if you could report on the talk page what you think are best practices in Module and Infobox code layout. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Mexican muralism[edit]

Greetings. It appears to me that these two items should be coordinated:

Mexican muralism (Q938864)

Mexican muralism (Q15141204)

It looks like ja ru uk should be taken from Q938864 and moved to Q15141204? I don't know how to do it. Then perhaps Q938864 should be named simply "Muralism". Y-barton (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Next office hour on July 8th[edit]

Hey folks :)

We'll do the next office hour for all things Wikidata on July 8th at 16:00 UTC. We'll meet in #wikimedia-office on freenode IRC. We'll talk about the last quarter, what's coming up and have time for discussion and questions. If there is a particular topic you'd like to discuss or present please let me know.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Error: Unrecognized value for parameter 'language'[edit]

I'm running into situations where it appears users have manually entered a language and included a label or description in that language, but when I try to edit it, I receive the above error. This has happened on Q208693 ("aln espaniol"), Q25160533 ("Kiswahili"), and Q25160188 ("enportugues"). Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

See above. --Edgars2007 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sitelinks on disambiguation items[edit]

Through interwiki imports by bot from Wikipedia, some items got links to disambiguation pages and articles. Not really a big problem, but there are probably many such items.

While there is a tool to check sitelinks on such items one-by-one, I think we should find a way to attempt to remove articles from such items in bulk. How could this be done?
--- Jura 19:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)