Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
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 and merges can be made 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 2015/07.


Contents

Change described by source (P1343) qualificator for Wikisource articles[edit]

Repeating @Infovarius: proposal from Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2015/05#Items for Wikisource: replace recommended qualifier for described by source (P1343) property for Wikisource linking from stated in (P248) to subject of (P805).

with qualifier stated in (P248) with value BaEED / New-York (Q16947036)
=>
with qualifier subject of (P805) with value BaEED / New-York (Q16947036)
(+) subject of (P805) is much better for such link
(-) bot work is required to change all existing qualifiers of property from stated in (P248) to subject of (P805) for all described by source (P1343)
(-) need to change LUA modules and templates at single project (ruwikisource)
(-) need to change gadgets code to use and populate new property

-- Vlsergey (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In subject of (P805) I expect to find a typical WP-article if you know what I mean. But I guess this maybe works when it's obvious that it's a WS-article. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You shouldn't use subject of (P805) in this case, as it doesn't make sense. The above example is stating that the dictionary is a subject of the linked article item, which is not what is intended. Hazmat2 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hazmat2: what qualifier should one use then? (Not a dictionary is a subject, but a fact that entity is described in dictionary is subject of the linked article item) -- Vlsergey (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the best way is to not use a qualifier at all, but to use the statement, described by source (P1343) and link directly to the article item. In terms of data, I believe this makes the most sense. The article is the most specific source (which is exactly what "described by source" refers to) and its item already states where the article is located. How would you use described by source (P1343) for a book that is a biography on a single subject? I personally would link directly to the book. A dictionary/encyclopedia is a special case where entries are often unrelated, or indirectly related, and therefore we have separate Wikisource pages and separate WD entries. They are compilations of hundreds or thousands of "tiny books." Instead of linking to the entire dictionary, if we have the ability to link directly to the item, I think we should.
However, since you requested another alternative, I think another option is to create a property specifically for entries/sections/etc. that have their own items, though I'm on the fence about this. The important thing to remember is that these are not "Wikisource items" but simply dictionary entry items that have a transcription on Wikisource. I apologize for my scattered thoughts but I'm just trying to get it out quickly as I have to go. Hazmat2 (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy problem (offtopic)[edit]

  • There are several problems with this:
    (1) the item Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358) is redundant as it's already present on item for the Wikisource page (BaEED / New-York (Q16947036)). Besides it makes it needless complicated for users to add this property manually. It gets even worse if you compare this with some of the solutions for texts that are also hosted elsewhere but Wikisource. The Wikisource version is much more complicated to maintain and build.
    Suggestion solution: use a dedicated property that links directly Wikisource.
    (2) described by source (P1343) is meant for offline resources. Not because it has "source" in its name that it's for Wikisource
    Suggested solution: see (1).
    --- Jura 13:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Re(2). BaEED is an offline source, the only difference here is that it can be found on Wikisource. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, once it gets online, it's an online one. Looking at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/22#P1343 it seems to have been proposed for random works in mind. Supposedly some that didn't have dedicated properties. The description on Property_talk:P1343 seems to evolve. In any case, I don't think this is a solution for online sources with a large number of uses. --- Jura 14:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: manual work with Wikidata shall be only for fixing problems. Usually Wikidata should be available via gadgets or third party UI. Thus it's not a problem. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if the guys working on Paulys' understand it this way. --- Jura 15:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • (2 edit conflicts in a row, I have to type faster...)
Also, lemmas or headings are usually recorded as section, verse, or paragraph (P958) and neither with stated in (P248) nor subject of (P805). But Jura's advice to directly link to the article in presence of a dedicated item is stronger. Thus should suffice. (Optionally provide a page or column number if the article is rather long and describes several New Yorks like state and city).
Innocent bystander: As long as the item's label reflects the offline resources lemma I don't see a real problem. If you insist you would have to provide two different references (imagine the print edition you want to cite is different from the Wikisource one) or create an additional item for the abstract encyclopedia article as a work for which the printed and the Wikisource versions are different editions or manifestations. -- Gymel (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
One reason I maybe have doubts here, is that I normally never use the word "article" about pages in WS. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem with omitting original source that we can't select by dictionary anymore. Currently it is possible to select article from dictionaries and ignore all others. In proposed case we need to enumerate all linked sources, check their "part of" and select only ones we are interested in. Additional problem is losing unification. Currently we have the same structure for both online and offline sources, including available on Wikidata. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You can always say . However this article has interesting additional info like an autor of its own, a volume and page number, a publication year of the specific volume, peraps a certain edition of Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358) for all that to make sense and additionally some URLs of places where you can read it online, including Wikisource (we have reference URL (P854) for that but nothing like "reference item" to provide a coarse statement with a confinement to two items simultaneously). So you cannot prohibit Wikidata from having a specific item for that encyclopedic item/article to bundle these properties (I mean, that's all what Wikidata is about...) And you cannot prohibit that more specific items are preferred for linking against broader ones. So you can only hope that there is some uniformity in those items and they all state . -- Gymel (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason behind P1343 is not to provide references (this is very interesting side effect), but to provide a way to obtain links to per-project predefined list of dictionaries. For example, ruwikisource need a way to select links to other dictionaries (incl. Britanica 1911, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358), etc) from main topic item. Thus we need a property that: 1. accepting references to dictionaries (not to articles itselfs) and accepting references to articles itselfs as qualifiers. Nobody prohibits anyone from creating specific items. Go on. But if one need those articles to be listed as "references to dictionaries" this item need to be present in described by source (P1343) and be specified as qualifier of value like Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358), Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1st edition (Q20078554), Q4086271 (Q4086271), etc. See ru:s:Модуль:Другие источники for implementation example and ru:s:МЭСБЕ/Рерих for example (line "Другие источники: БСЭ1 : ЭСБЕ") -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

And no, you can't move dictionary inside item (you still better to copy it). Because this will lead to "cycle all items from property, access them, check what's inside, and throw away 90%". This will obviously bad pattern. -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so: WDQ should be able to confine a query to those items which are connected by published in (P1433) to a certain dictionary. On the other hand to give a reference with described by source (P1343) to a resource 10.000 times more coarse than the specific item and providing a redundant link via subject of (P805) - how do you intend to enforce that (almost everyone will spot the redundancy in that construction and somehow try to "resolve" it)? I have been trying to understand subject of (P805) from the few examples given and came to the following conclusion: Consulting the object behind BaEED / New-York (Q16947036) will positively answer the question, whether New York City (Q60) is indeed described by Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Q602358). That's not wrong (but perhaps the conclusion is more implicit than the inventors of subject of (P805) had in mind?) but an impressingly convoluted way to express some rather linear association "X is described by (Y part of Z)" (which IMHO implies "X is described by Z")... Its like describing a needle like this: "Throw it into a haystack and then there will be one object attracted by a magnet: that's a needle!". -- Gymel (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Gymel: it's not possible to use WDQ from LUA/templates. LUA/templates access to items must be straightforward. Filtering items (not claims) from LUA code is no-no. 2. "how do you intend to enforce that" -- well, that's a big problem at Wikidata, because a lot of people make changes that they think is good, but actually breaks things at other wikis. But regarding P1343 I saw no bad changes in my watchlist so far. ruwiki & ruwikisource users are making changes using special gadgets, thus they will not made a mistake. But other users are problems. -- Vlsergey (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Should we use stated in (P248) as a qualifier?[edit]

Moved to this thread by Vlsergey. --Succu (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I made this change at Charles Darwin (Q1035) which was reverted by Vlsergey. In my opionion references should be added to the reference section and not added as a qualifier. --Succu (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe subject of (P805) should be used. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with succu that stated in (P248) is a source property and should only be used in references. The redundancy problem which arised above should be solved using programming code and not by introducing more and more redundancy. -- Bene* talk 20:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It's really a bad idea to mix online and offline sources in one property, whatever the qualifier being used. --- Jura 05:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Domain of described by source (P1343)[edit]

The english property description is: „The enumeration of sources where item is described. Dictionary, encyclopedia, etc. Qualificator stated in (P248) shall be used for links to articular article in Wikisource and reference URL (P854) for external reference. Recommended only for printed dictionaries and encyclopedias (including resent at Wikisource or their own website). For sites like Internet Movie Database (Q37312) there are additional properties like IMDb identifier (P345)“.

It seems to me that the original description was Google translated and extended. We should clarify the domain of described by source (P1343) before we are talking about bot requests. --Succu (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy[edit]

I feel that I need to clarify something. Redundancy. Redundancy itself is not bad. Redundancy is a property of data when we have some duplication. It has pro and contras:

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Redundancy obviously occupies more storage space. As we all know, this is not our problem at all (don't worry about tech. stuff until Maksem some IT guy knocks in your IM)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Duplicating means we need to update 2 or more copies of data simultaneously, otherwise we have discrepancy. Thus we need additional bots and tools to check and resolve such discrepancies.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Redundancy means faster access. We don't need to go to separate item if the same data already stored in current one. We don't need arbitrary access to another item, thus saving precious "one of 500 expensive parser function call". Redundancy means less complexity for client LUA modules and templates.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Redundancy means data are more simple to observe, edit, check and make vandal-prone. Single incorrect change in "very main item" means we have one Wikipedia article broken and one new line in discrepancy report. Also for Wikipedia article editor it is much simple to edit one specified item to change incorrect data than to understand LUA/templates/Wikidata logic and find a place where he should actually fix data.

One shall never throw away something just because or redundancy. One shall always provide an argument that redundancy is not necessary in the particular case. In most cases there is a simple way to get the same data. More over the person who introduce redundancy need to explain, why it was introduced, why he does not see a simple way to do without it. But first of all everyone need to accept the possibility that sometimes such redundancy "pro" is more than "contra".

I'll give you single example where redundancy "pro" is much better than "contra", from my point of view. Birth place. In ruwiki a lot of articles have line in infobox with something like "City, Region, Country". One can say "it's very simple to use arbitrary access and get to the country from specific item". Well, actually, it's not so simple:

  • World changes. The countries centuries ago are not the same as today. Every country has "life span". We need to find a parent item applied to specified timespan.
  • Time span is defined by birth date, that can have 2 or more possible variants
  • Did I mention already that birth date can be something "at the end of XIV century", leading us to problems with "birthplace" LUA module?

Personally I believe that birthplace and deathplace redundancy should be preserved. At least until some very smart guy (hi Bene) write some very-very smart LUA module, some very handsome girl (hi, Lydia) write down detailed description for usual Wikipedia editor how to fix "this-city-was-not-part-of-something-at-this-date" problem (pages 50-100 I assume), and some very-very stupid project from TOP10 (not ruwiki!) will put it in action in their infoboxes.

Obviously redundancy is very bad for data that updates regularly. One shall never duplicate URLs, statistical data, etc. But let you mind not to be fixed on incorrect assumption that "redundancy is bad". -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thats way too abstract for me. We have redundancy by inverse properties, which in a sense may be the worst one because it's spread out to different items. Then we have redundancy of expression, some more complex statements can only be made by qualifying a claim with property P by something with property Q but the same can be expressed by qualifying a claim with property Q' by property P. We also have the case you may be alluding to, where parallel claims exist where one could be (sometimes unambigously) inferred from the other. But I have to admit the specific zig-zag redundancy you proposed above I've never encountered before... -- Gymel (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I the story started several days ago, when a Russian user complained at the Russian version of the Project Chat that they are being reverted by @Sjoerddebruin: (see Q191848 for example). The point was that the user tried to add a qualifier to the iem on a football player. The property was showing the city of birth, and the idea was to have a qualifier which would also indicate the country of birth. Sjoerd reverted saying that this info is redundant. The user has chosen to edit-war, and won in most of the articles. However, I agreed with Sjoerd, that the info is redundant. The only motivation of the user was that in Russian Wikipedia they read the country directly from Wikidata in the infobox, and since they are only have the Arbitrary access in a month, all info they need for the infobox NOW needs to be in the same item. I tried to explain that this is not a good approach, without much success, got attacked and decided to unwatch the page, so that I do not know what they decided there. I still oppose this approach, but I might be in the minority, I do not know.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that arbitrary access for the Russian Wikipedia has been moved forward to the 23rd of June, see what Lydia said in #next_round_of_arbitrary_access_rollouts above. - Nikki (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I know, but in any case I do not think that the absence of an arbitrary access at a project should be a reason for us to add information readily available elswere. At best this must be negociated with the Wikidata community.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean it as something for/against what you said, I just wanted to add an update for anyone reading this who wasn't aware that the date had changed. :) I do agree with you though, I don't see a good reason to duplicate the data just because arbitrary access isn't fully rolled out yet. - Nikki (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I made some discoveries some days ago when I tried to edit European Parliament election in the United Kingdom, 2014 (Q5412950). My approach to the problem here was that the sum of all UK-constituencies would describe the UK-election in the whole. I intended not tp add very much in the UK-item, but instead in the constituency-items. I did this to avoid Redundancy. But a BIG problem I discovered, was that the sum of information I had in sources for each constituency would not fit the sum of all information for the whole country. That one constituency (Northern Ireland) has a completly different voting system, was not the only problem. The sources for each constituency was not as detailed as the sources for the whole nation. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Motî?[edit]

I'm working on reducing the number of items with no claims and while making a list of items without claims, but do have a ':' in their title (this list) I ran into quite a few on the Walloon Wikipedia that look like dictionary entries, some examples:

Any suggestions on what kind of claim(s) to add to these kind of items? Multichill (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Add them instance of (P31) dictionary page in Wikipedia (Q20088085). See also w:wa:Special:PrefixIndex/Motî:. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
That was my plan B :-)
Running now. Multichill (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Bacon challenge[edit]

Hoi, I have a challenge for those people who know how to use Wikidata data... It is the Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation challenge.. Can this be done? My challenge would be to expand networks to Mr Bacon. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Challenge accepted! I am currently running a program (code here) to find the shortest path from Kevin Bacon (Q3454165) to Genghis Khan (Q720) by brute horse, recording everything else it encounters. The other end point you suggested, Julius Caesar (Q1048), has a WDPBN (WikiData Psuedo Bacon Number) of at most 90, since July (Q121) is currently holding steady at 89 (Julius Caesar (Q1048) itself has not yet been added to the list, but probably will be soon).
I have no idea how long it will take, but Autolist says there's a familial connection of some sort between George Washington (Q23) and Genghis Khan (Q720) (and, for that matter, 32000 other people) (George Washington (Q23)'s number, incidentally, is 68, via head of government (P6) from United States of America (Q30)) Popcorndude (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Due to an unfortunate error, my program was not actually recording the shortest paths (Bacon's own WDPBN is currently listed as 4). I shall now run the program again. Popcorndude (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If anyone's interested:
Popcorndude (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Popcorndude !!. I blogged about your effort the challenge is also to make it possible to use your routine with "live" Wikidata data. WDQ counts as such for me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been trying to make a live version, it's not working. The best I can do for now is say either download the code I linked to and run it yourself (it gets up to 6 degrees in about an hour or 2), or contact me and ask (I may be able to upload some of them in a useable manner somewhere). (By the way, every village in China probably has a WDPBN of 7) Popcorndude (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
In a few hours, when the program runs out of connections, I'll see about sharing them somehow (I think I have a way). Until then, here's one that made me laugh:
Popcorndude (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
For WDPBN: 1 -> 13 items, 2 -> 265 items, 3 -> 3889, 4 -> 24000, 5 -> 60969, 6 -> 166099, 7 -> 705344
That's 960580 items with WDPBN < 8
Here's all the items with a WDPBN of 2 not linked from United States of America (Q30) (uploading this in a meaningful way is quite impractical for any higher numbers, unfortunately). Popcorndude (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is almost certainly the shortest path, but I only checked familial properties after Elizabeth the Cuman (Q265467), so there might be sorter one, though it's rather unlikely.
An alternate path goes through only people starting from George Washington (Q23) (WDPBN 2), and has Elizabeth the Cuman (Q265467) as being 20 away from him.
Another random thing I found: Arnold Schwarzenegger (Q2685): Bacon Number: 2, WDPBN: 5, distance from George Washington (Q23) using only parent-child connections: 42, using parent, child, sibling, and spouse: 37
And I'm now reasonably confident that I will not be making a "live" version of this program anytime soon, though I am willing to answer requests for specific people's paths. Popcorndude (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Mary of Hungary, Queen of Naples (Q614258) was missing links to her siblings. Popcorndude (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Pie charts about people items[edit]

A few pies can be found at User:Jura1/People charts. --- Jura 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Help[edit]

Hello,
I don't know how to link this page > nl:Giffard-Luchtschip and fr:Dirigeable Giffard. Anyway, it's the same article. Thanks Mike Coppolano (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mike Coppolano Thank you for the report. I merged the corresponding Wikidata items. -- Gymel (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #162[edit]

New rfc: Help:Basic membership properties[edit]

Hi, the project guideline status of Help:BMP has been challenged, although its been a reference since the beginning. So I opened a RfC to adopt it formally.

@Andreasmperu, Snipre, Zolo, Emw, Succu, Izno:@Bene*, Kopiersperre:, ...

It's already open for comment at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Adopt Help:Classification as an official help page. --- Jura 17:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: No, it's another page ... TomT0m (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The currently open RFC is at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Adopt Help:Classification as an official help page. Opening another one is just confusing. If you need help contributing, maybe there are specific problems you encounter when adding statements and you want us to look into. --- Jura 17:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: OK, I guess you have another idea then. What do you suggest ? TomT0m (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
When trying to add statements, what problems do you encounter and feel you need help? --- Jura 18:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jura1: I'll think about it the next time I'll have a problem adding a statement and I'll ping you, I promise. TomT0m (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Mediation needed with Andreasmperu[edit]

See for example this diff : https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q15709880&curid=17344953&diff=222473528&oldid=222473145 . The previous edit is a revert of mine with an explanation as a comment. Several of his edit popped up I wanted to talk about, pinged him several times today on item talk pages, absolutely no answer. Not easy to deal with ...

(Notifying Andreasmperu) TomT0m (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: see Talk:Q24925‎‎ and Talk:Q2882221‎. TomT0m (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, TomT0m. Aren't you supposed to contact me first on my talk page if you have anything to discuss? I tend to check my watchlist often that my notifications when I am editing. I only received a ping for this talk page, but I did not understand what you were referring to (since no specific items or editions were mentioned). Also, I am a "she" not a "he" (not that it is such a big deal). Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 18:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
@Andreasmperu: Sorry, I'll know that, now, I did not know Andreas could be a shea :) Can I ask you why you added
< radio program > part of (P361) miga < radio program or tv program >
but
< radio program > subclass of (P279) miga < work >
 ? That's inconsistent. We just have to say
< radio program > subclass of (P279) miga < radio program or tv program >
and
< radio program or tv program > subclass of (P279) miga < work >
. part of (P361) is for objects that are made of other objects, like car/wheel, not per classes.
And why you did not try to know why I reverted you ? I put something in the revert message related to the previous question : Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic#subclass. I also don't understand why you did not answer and ignored me when you could have asked more details ... I still don't know what the plan is about genre, I don't know if that make sense if a genre can be a subclass of another one. I know works of a subgenre are subclass of works in the (super)genre. TomT0m (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Specifying academic rank[edit]

I am wondering what is the best way to specify academic ranks. In Soviet Union, Russia and some other countries there is (or was) a parallel to academic degree system of ranking. For Soviet/Russian scientists this is important information included in ru.wikipedia in infoboxes. Namely, I am interesting in distinction between corresponding and full members of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As for now, membership itself is specifying by means of member of (P463) which seems to be reasonable. I also can use some qualifier (say, as (P794)) to specify type of the membership. But this way requires creation of two entries differ only by qualifier for people who first were corresponding members and then were elected to be full members (this is actually true for most of the full members). So, I am wondering if there is more elegant way to do it. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

May be I do not get the point, but why can you make two qualifiers, specifying also the periods when they were corresponding and full member? Say a person X was a member, qualifier 1 corresponding qualifier 2 year1 qualifier 3 year2; qualifier 1 full member qualifier 2 year2 qualifier 3 year3? --Ymblanter (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Can you demonstrate it, say, on Yury Osipov (Q85404)? The dates may be found here. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Pls have a look. (In his case, thighs are even more complicated, since he was both the member of USSR Academy of Sciences and of RAS, and also I was too lazy to add sources, but I guess the idea is clear).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I see, thanks. As I said, what I don't like here is that there are now two claims of the form Yury Osipov (Q85404) <member of (P463)  Academy of Sciences of the USSR (Q2370801). It's not a big problem, of course, but I hoped there is a more elegant way. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Let us see, may be someone has a better solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Artem Korzhimanov: I would say that ranks are informations about a class of person. So I think a solution could be , with
< university professor (Q1622272) (View with Reasonator) > instance of (P31) miga < academic rank >
 and ,
< academic > subclass of (P279) miga < person >
(let's not be too much human (Q5) centric, maybe a descendant of common octopus (Q651361) (View with Reasonator) will go to the university some day. TomT0m (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I like the idea but isn't instance of (P31) too general for such statements? Say, for President of the United States of America (Q11696) we use more specific property position held (P39). Maybe we need special property "academic rank"? And is it ok to apply to instance of (P31) qualifiers like start time (P580) and end time (P582)? Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Artem Korzhimanov: This is not a popular position on this project, but instance of (P31) is inspired from the type property of RDF or other in OWL. This means classes can be as specific as we need them to be. See Help:Classification for a more detailed explanation and on how instance of (P31) could use other properties to define a class. There is a open RfC to adopt it as a guideline if you like :) For example I'd very well see a query about academics as human who teach or work in a university and so on. In my mind we could position instance of (P31) academic to an item if we know only this as an item, and a bot could infer there miss something, or add (or suggest) the missing statements if he can, beeing aware of a query associated to the class.
@Artem Korzhimanov: You can qualify the membership (member of (P463)), no problem. Check Richard Foerster (Q90899) for example. Jonathan Groß (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jonathan Groß: The question is whether it's normal to have two claims with the same object but different qualifiers:
I think it's not a big problem, of course, but it seems to be somewhat redundant. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It does. Couldn't you just use ? What's the point of academician (Q414528)? Every member of an academy of sciences is an academician (Q414528), no matter if corresponding member, honorary member or what not. Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jonathan Groß: No, I couldn't. As I said there are two types of membership in Russian Academy of Sciences: "correspondence member" and "full member". The last usually called "academician" in a narrow sense (and a correspondence member of RAS is almost never called "academician" in Russia). What is more important is that they are two qualitatively different ranks in Soviet/Russian academic system and must be distinguishable. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Artem Korzhimanov: nothing prevents you to store the value as qualifier of member of (P463) claim, but change appropriate infobox code to display such claim+qualifier as or . -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vlsergey: Haven't caught an idea, sorry. Can you demonstrate how to store the information about academic rank (not degree) with dates, say, on Gennady Mesyats (Q4291469). The dates may be found here. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Artem Korzhimanov: something like this? -- Vlsergey (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vlsergey: that's what I talked about in the first message and then was proposed by Ymblanter and Jonathan Groß. What I dislike here is the redundancy of two claims with the same value (see above an example with Yury Osipov (Q85404)). If we had property "academic rank", I could make two different claims (values below are not valid as they are instances of list articles, but it's not a problem: if needed, we can create two new items which will be instances of corresponding member (Q2625729) and academician (Q414528), another option — is to use corresponding member (Q2625729) and academician (Q414528) with qualifiers):
< Yury Osipov (Q85404) (View with Reasonator) > academic rank search < full members of RAS (Q4156897) (View with Reasonator) >
But we don't have such a property (academic degree (P512) is not suitable in my opinion as this is a different system of ranking) and the question is: Do we need it or we could do the same with already existent properties? Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Artem Korzhimanov: well, how about this then:
-- Vlsergey (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
@Vlsergey: Well, the thing is that full members of RAS (Q4156897) and full members of RAS (Q4156897) are formally and semantically not of type organization (Q43229). In other respect the idea has sense. Artem Korzhimanov (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge problems[edit]

Can someone merge en:Category:Meat industry (Q8614887) with German de:Kategorie:Fleischherstellung (Q8954695) 92.76.115.221 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

These items each have a commons category, this prevents merging. Mbch331 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed one of the commons category and merged. MSGJ (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge en:Category:Pork dishes (Q7213601) with German de:Kategorie:Fleischgericht (Schwein) (Q19474558) 92.76.115.221 18:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge en:Category:Lamb dishes (Q5885348) with German de:Kategorie:Fleischgericht (Schaf) (Q19474550) 92.76.115.221 18:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge en:Category:Beef dishes (Q7213600) with German de:Kategorie:Fleischgericht (Rind) (Q19474543) 92.76.115.221 18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge en:Category:Sausage dishes (Q16811235) with German de:Kategorie:Wurstgericht (Q19616978) 92.76.115.221 18:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge en:Category:Maize dishes (Q8596746) with German de:Kategorie:Maisgericht (Q19481594) 92.76.124.0 19:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Lymantria (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Absent in a source, used as a source?[edit]

Would you consider the lack of being mentioned in a source as a source in itself?

An example: Q17048639 (Q17048639) is present in the report: Q20087097 (Q20087097) describing the situation 1990. But she is missing in the report about 1995: Q20087135 (Q20087135). I consider that as a proof that the locality has lost its status as a Småort (Q14839548) 1995, but would you accept that as a reference for "end date 1995-12-30" for P31:Q14839548? Statistics Sweden is the only authority in this case and it is in these reports they publish things like this. Corrections of these reports are sometimes published, but I fail to find any in this particular case. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say have a more vague end date, maybe just "1995", since I don't know how you might specify "somewhere between 1990 and 1995". Popcorndude (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ATC code J01(Q434066)[edit]

On the page above click Wikipedia → en. The list of languages is empty. Other languages are OK. Gyimhu (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert analysis[edit]

Hey. I analyzed all 2073 reverts of IP edits during the last 30 days and identified the country of origin of the IP's. In the graph below all countries with more than ten reverts are listed.

Remarkably, seven out of the ten top countries are Spanish speaking countries. In total, IP's from these seven countries are responsible for 1117 reverted edits or 55% of all reverted edits during the studied period. I hypothesize that many IP's are coming from Spanish Wikipedia articles with a [editar datos en Wikidata] link as in es:Jesé Rodríguez. Such links are one hand very welcome as Wikipedia authors can faster improve the connected Wikidata item, on the other hand they open a new playground for vandals. I checked if the vandalizing IP addresses from Spanish speaking countries are also active on Spanish Wikipedia. Though only 14% of these IP's have also reverted edits on Spanish Wikipedia. This means that vandals on Wikidata and Spanish Wikipedia are different people but most probably many Wikidata vandals are coming from Spanish Wikipedia --Pasleim (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could attempt to display the (additional) edit link on eswiki only to users who are logged-in?
If there is a technical way to do this, please suggest it at es:Módulo_discusión:Ficha#.22editar_datos_en_Wikidata.22. --- Jura 20:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at all IP edits from the same region(s), what is the proportion of edits that have been reverted? --- Jura 21:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I created a second plot showing the number of reverts by country relative to the total number of IP edits made in the country. Only countries with more than 100 edits are shown. In average, 7% of all IP edits get reverted. --Pasleim (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
25% seems fairly high. Is it? --- Jura 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Are they editing Spanish-speaking content? From what I have heard, South America is one of the main hosts for Zombies. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I came across vandalism on football players and politicians. --- Jura 13:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pasleim: My hypothesis is same. Compare with this discussion in February.
In cswiki, infoboxes using data from Wikidata show similar text but it says "some data may come from Wikidata" instead of "edit the data in Wikidata". Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, eswiki still displays the "editar" link on semi-protected pages. So items like Q165125 get edited instead. --- Jura 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Great work, Pasleim! I see that 'Editar datos en Wikidata' was added on 8 feb 2014. Can we see a growth of IP edits to wikidata around this time? Or a growth of spanish descriptions after 8 feb 2014? --Atlasowa (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

This is awesome: Wikidata:Database_reports/Number_of_edits! (It doesn't show a spanish IP pattern, though). Fantastic graph, explains so much about wikidata (widar et al.) --Atlasowa (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hm, it might suggest that IP edits haven't increased, just vandalism. --- Jura 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Chart at User:Jura1/test3. --- Jura 14:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like similar "edit infobox at wikidata" notes were added in french WP (march 2015, see fr:The_Octagon_House), inspired by hungarian WP infoboxes with « +/- » next to infobox-data from wikidata (see hu:Mohács). --Atlasowa (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"infobox monument" is likely to draw a different public. What type of vandalism/IP edit have you observed? --- Jura 13:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think if the spanish infobox-wikidata-link is indeed responsible for more vandalism, then we should compare different models of infobox-wikidata-links in different WP and how they affect Wikidata. Especially since it looks like enWP will copy the spanish infobox-wikidata-links despite the revert analysis: en:Wikipedia_talk:Wikidata#Edit_in_Wikidata_links! --Atlasowa (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Protecting the page locally and adding more links to edit Wikidata is just asking for trouble. Other than that, it might be preferable to attempt to convince logged-in users to edit Wikidata rather than IPs. (Not that I think IP should be prevent from contributing in general).
Personally, I like the edit links leading to the actual source for specific infobox fields. --- Jura 04:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Towards Vandalism Detection in Knowledge Bases: Corpus Construction and Analysis SIGIR’15, August 09 - 13, 2015, Santiago, Chile. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767804 : "Our corpus is based on a database dump of the full revision history of Wikidata until November 7, 2014 (...) about 85% of revisions are made automatically by bots approved by Wikidata’s community. (...) As we are interested in detecting ill-intentioned contributions by humans, and not errors in bots, we base our corpus on the 24 million manual revisions."
    • Revisions made on Wikidata 167,802,227 100 %
    • Revisions made on meta pages 1,211,628 1 %
    • Revisions made on special items 11,167 0 %
    • Revisions made automatically 142,574,999 85 %
    • Revisions made manually 24,004,433 14 %
  • "Of the 24 million manual revisions made on Wikidata, a total of 103,205 have been reverted via rollbacks, and 64,820 via undo/restore. Based on our below validity analysis, we label roll-back revisions as vandalism, whereas this cannot be done with confidence for undo/restore revisions."
  • (Figure 2: Manual revisions on Wikidata per month. Revisions affecting textual content (labels, descriptions, and aliases) are distinguished from revisions affecting structural content (statements and sitelinks). Major growth events are labeled.) "The first jump of growth rate was caused by enabling statement creation for first time. In the months around this event, Wikidata was connected to the Wikipedias in various languages, adding millions of statements and sitelinks. (...) The second growth rate increase is due to the emergence of semi-automatic editing tools for Wikidata, most notably the Wikidata Game.
  • Vandalized Item Categories: "Table 1: Top vandalized items Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, One Direction, Portal:Featured content, Justin Bieber, Barack Obama, English Wikipedia, Selena Gomez (...) the least vandalized category Places gets almost 4 times as much attention by all editors (31%) (...) The focus of vandals deviates significantly from typical editors (...) while categorizing the revision samples, we noticed that 11% of the vandalized items concerned India, cross-cutting all categories, compared to 0.5% overall."
  • Vandalized Content Types: "About 57% of the vandalism happens in textual content like labels, descriptions, and aliases; and about 40% happens in structural content like statements and sitelinks. The remaining 2% of miscellaneous vandalism includes merging of items and indecisive cases."
  • Vandals: "About 86% (88,592 of 103,205) of vandalism on Wikidata originates from anonymous users. (...) Unregistered users primarily vandalize textual content and sitelinks, whereas registered users primarily vandalize statements and sitelinks."

Interesting analysis. --Atlasowa (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems that I had never fixed any vandalism as defined by the study as I hadn't used the roll-back function until recently. I'm curious about the response to Lydia's question to the authors. --- Jura 10:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Jura, you mean "Lydia is in touch with them to figure out how to best use the insights for us." (Wikidata:Status_updates/2015_06_27#Other_Noteworthy_Stuff) or are there more specific questions? Things i noticed:
1) The study doesn't analyse Wikidata vandalism in general, but only specific detected vandalism. Maybe 50% of wikidata vandalism is getting fixed, or 5% or 90%, we don't know? It's problematic to generalise from the analysed detected vandalism to all vandalism.
2) Did the study take into account Special:AbuseFilter? Which puts up some edits for screening if certain conditions are met. Or did the study not know this, and will in circular fashion advise wikidata to built the abuse filters that we already have?
3) The study didn't analyse IP origins like User:Pasleim, it seems. Great to have a corpus of wikidata vandalism edits (2012 until November 2014) then for further analysis! :-) --Atlasowa (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll add those to the questions I'll ask them. Currently still trying to schedule a call. If you have more questions for them let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mapping between Freebase and Wikidata[edit]

Hey everyone,

One of the big challenge of the importation of a part of Freebase into Wikidata project is to do a good mapping of the properties of Freebase to Wikidata ones in order to be able to feed the Primary Source tool with as much good data as possible. As there are a few thousand of properties it is a task too big to be done alone.

I have created a page to work on it and your help is more than welcome: Wikidata:WikiProject Freebase/Mapping. Tpt (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Dissambiguation + Surname[edit]

Hi! Should we (majestic plural) split items like this (Madariaga (Q342908)) into two independent Qs sort of ("disambiguation" and "surname")? Or happy together? Strakhov (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been splitting them, since family name (P734) has Conflicts with instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), but I've really only done it twice. Popcorndude (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have splitted as usual (Q342908 + Q20119834). --ValterVB (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to you both, next time I'll do the same way! Strakhov (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
But together was happier :(( --Infovarius (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

North America[edit]

I keep trying to split North America (Q49) into two pages because in some languages "North America" means everything north of Panama, but in other languages it only means Mexico, United States, Canada, and Greenland. These two versions of the continent have different populations, different sizes, and different images, so they need different pages. However, others keep reverting my split. May I please get a consensus to keep them split? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be easier if we had a solution related to interwiki so to avoid this, comment here : #Bonny_and_Clyde_.3B_arbitrary_access. Moreother, I have a potential solution : create a meta item, like North america definition, a metaclass in the sense of Help:Classification, with
< North America (Q49) (View with Reasonator) > instance of (P31) miga < North America definition >
to serve as a bridge into the two items. We could also say something like
< North America definition > instance of (P31) miga < metaclass of Conflicting definition >
, and put a warning in the merge item that two instances of the same conficting definition class should NOT be merged. TomT0m (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@Arctic.gnome: added your problem in Wikidata:WikiProject Cross Items Interwikis. TomT0m (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
We already have a perfectly good solution for handling this type of issue and it is the solution that Arctic.gnome proposed - Create two separate items - "North America (including Central America and the Caribbean)" and "North America (excluding Central America and the Caribbean)". These are clearly two different concepts. Weird meta-classes to resolve word definitions belong in Wiktionary, not in Wikidata. Wikidata is concerned with the definition of concepts - it is not concerned with the definition of words and phrases. Filceolaire (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: Yeah, that's what I propose also. But as competing definitions for very close concepts is a pretty common case. Some metaclasses regrouping those definitions could prove useful, if for no other reason to link them together. I don't think wiktionary can really do that as it's different terms in different languages that will have little to do with each other and won't translate from one to the other. TomT0m (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Although I think they need to be two items for the purpose of logging population and area, it does create the odd situation where each project's article about North America only has inter-language links to half of the other projects (i.e., the projects which use the same definition). --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support keeping them split. We're probably going to have a lot of situations like this, since language's distinctions tend to be very different from each other. The current North America (including Panama etc.) should, in my opinion, just have "North America" as the English label, since that's what North America means in English. The other, I'm not sure. We already have a Northern America (Q2017699); maybe Mexico plus it should be labeled "Northern America and Mexico"? --Yair rand (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Well, the Swedish article sv:Nordamerika does not tell any definite definition of the word. It tells in the beginning of the article that Mexico and Central America is included in various degrees depending on how/when the word is used. One definition only includes USA, Canada, Belize, Guyana and the English-speaking parts of West Indies (Q669037). If Greenland is included in that case is not obvious. But I think Greenland sometimes is regarded as a part of Europe, and not as a part of North America. The definition of Europe also have the same problem in the other directions. Are the cities of Vladivostok, Ankara, Ceuta, Melilla and Las Palmas located in Europe or in Asia or Africa? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There are a few languages that discuss both definitions. Those languages will have to decide which Wikidata item to link to. If they want an infobox with the population and area, then use the Wikidata page with the numbers they want. If they want to discuss both definitions and give both equal weight, maybe they should create a new Wikidata item that is an instance of "term". --Arctic.gnome (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, if an article discusses both then the article is about the larger concept (including Central America) and includes a discussion of various parts of that concept. When we have arbitrary access (being rolled out now) it should be possible for an article to have multiple infoboxes, each linked to a different wikidata item (at least that is my understanding). Filceolaire (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Filceolaire: That's actually one example of where the multiple definitions item could prove useful. If it's unclear which is the main definition of the article, then the article talks about all the alternatives, then it become a viable option to link it to the meta item. Then when we know all of their instances, we can generate automatically one infobox for each of the definitions (the definitions which are instances of the metaclass). TomT0m (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Multiple infoboxes in one article is not popular where I come from. :) I guess this often is a typical subject, when you need to discuss why or why not some nations/dependant areas are included in the term or not. It's not a typical infobox-subject. The only nation that is included in all definitions in the Swedish article is U.S (ex Hawaii). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Creation of the Cross Item Interwiki Project[edit]

\o_ I think the creation of WD:XLINK would deserve a broad announcement as it's a problem global to kind of everybody.

How could we do that ? A global message, a personalized message from Wikidatas (with a checklist of majors Wikipedia) on bistros or village pumps, and so on ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomT0m (talk • contribs).

  • There are a lot of "global" questions. Almost any Wikidata question is "global". But I doubt every Wikidata question need to be distributed via global message. At ruwiki we have distinguish "village pump" for Wikidata (ex-interwiki) questions. Some of projects may have too. We should collect such pages and create wikidata-specific distribution list. -- Vlsergey (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not hard, it's available with a link on this page : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16503#sitelinks-wikipedia But that's roughly what a global message does :) What's interesting with a global message is that we could initiate a global traduction before sending it, like wikitech ambassadors does , and that it would be translated in languages for which we do not have a usual Wikidatan involved. What's interesting with the per chat solution is the social personalized communication for those who don't leave their native projects easily. TomT0m (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Item confusion with regard to United States[edit]

Item United States (Q16071431) seems to be redundant of United States of America (Q30). I recommend the two be merged in some way. I also noticed that some of the Interwiki links on the United States of America (Q30) item page also seem to refer to categories while others do not and someone who can speak those languages and are more experienced in Wikidata may want to try and sort that out. I wasn't sure if this was a for deletion type issue so I thought I would drop the note here and see what folks say about it. Let me know if you think I should submit it to the for discussion/deletion board. Additionally, I notice that there are duplicate categories for Category:United States (Q1410960) and Category:United States (Q8879680) which both seem to mostly refer to the same things. Reguyla (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

United States (Q16071431) is a zhwiki Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410), and should not be merged. I have merged the categories. Popcorndude (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Should it be merged with United States (Q232865), or does zh.wiki recognize a difference between "United States (disambiguation)" and "The United States (disambiguation)"? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say yes, merge it. (though note that I am working off of a google translate of a snippet, you should probably check it yourself to be sure) Popcorndude (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I'm still new to Wikidata and learning how to do stuff. This particular knot was a little more than I wanted to try and unravel without consultation. Reguyla (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have now merged them. MSGJ (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple "United States". The USA is just the most well known. GerardM (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't merge[edit]

As often happens here (a clue that the system is not properly designed), I found two same entries: Q4074925 and Q16186578.

I emptied Q16186578.

Now, I want to redirect Q16186578 to Q4074925.

Special:RedirectEntity tells me that Q16186578 isn't empty. Looks empty to me. What else do I need to delete (and how)?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knife-in-the-drawer (talk • contribs).

@Knife-in-the-drawer: I don't know anything about using Special:RedirectEntity directly, but I would recommend reading Help:Merge#Automatic_merge - there are easier ways to merge things. :) - Nikki (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This edit shows it indeed wasn't empty. There were still some labels present. If you activate the merge gadget in your preferences and use that to merge, you don't have to worry about an item being empty or not. Mbch331 (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Note you can also use Special:MergeItems. -- Bene* talk 07:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. @Mbch331: thanks for the link to the differences. Labels for nl, it, and fr. However, when I click on "Revision as of 03:17, 17 June 2015" on the Difference page to see the version that I saved, the "labels" table (for lack of a better name) shows English, Czech, German, Polish (with no labels defined).

Where are nl, it, and fr hiding?

I never configured the "labels" table to show only English, Czech, German, Polish. Interestingly, though, those four languages represent my native language and geographic location. Did WikiData automatically configure those languages as an "aid" for me? If yes, it was clearly a hindrance, not an aid.

Just like all of the statements in a WikiData entry, the "labels" table should show only currently defined labels. If a label isn't defined for English, as an example, then don't show English. If I'm an English speaker and I want to add an English label to an entry, then I should click an [add] link...just like all of the statements. If labels for Dutch, Italian, and French are defined, then they should always appear in the "labels" table...just like all of the statements. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Knife-in-the-drawer: Although this is not the case for you, since you have no user page, if a user has one and uses the Babel extension, then he will see those languages as suggestions. Alternately, you can edit Special:Preferences. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Knife-in-the-drawer:. It shouldn't show labels used, it should show labels the user could understand. If they are empty the user is triggered to fill them. If it would show me labels that are filled in eg. Chinese and Russian, I wouldn't understand it and if it didn't show empty labels of languages I know I wouldn't be triggered to fill them. In case of creating a redirect, it can be a bit difficult if you see empty labels and don't see filled label, but the user interface is designed for showing and adding information. Merging and redirecting is something different and not the default actions you'd expect, so the UI isn't designed for that. Mbch331 (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Meridiophila same as Loxostege[edit]

Meridiophila appears to be a synonym or alias for Loxostege and most Wikipedia language instances redirect one to the other. However, one does not. As a result, merging the Wikidata items for Meridophila and Loxostege is not immediately straight forward. Can someone confirm they are indeed the same? If so, can someone in the vi language code merge the two articles on that Wikipedia installation to allow the Wikidata entries to be merged?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brantgurga (talk • contribs).

Vi is a common offender for biology articles. I usually take a stab at merging them myself with the help of Google Translate (using translate only to identify the text to-be-merged, not to write new text). You can always try slapping a Template:Merge (Q6919004) on the pages, but who knows how long that will take? --Izno (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Option to hide all statements[edit]

I think it would be useful to add an option to collapse all the statements in so you could just focus on the links if you wanted. Some items have a lot of statements and it takes a while to scroll down to find the links at the bottom. FallingGravity (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: You might find the "KeyShortcuts" gadget in the preferences useful, that adds a keyboard shortcut "i" which jumps to the sitelinks section. - Nikki (talk) 17:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a nice gadget, but the change I'm thinking of would make the links more accessible to new users and IPs. FallingGravity (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You should also be aware of that the statements can be usefull to see the differences between two items. That is maybe somtimes the only way to see why there is two items with the same label, who should not be merged. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Uh, I'm thinking the statements would be open (un-collapsed) by default or when someone opens the page. The option to collapse the statements and easily get to the links would then the choice of the user. FallingGravity (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The interface redesign will contain this, they are working on this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

LCAuth, LCCN and LCOC LCCN[edit]

Here is another strange property knot.

LCAuth identifier(P244) shows aliasas that include LCCN. When you add LCCN it pops up as LCAuth identifier and also gives the option for LCOC LCCN (bibliographic)(P1144) which also references several of the same aliases as the LCAuth identifier did. So I think someone might want to take a look at these and clarify them or merge them if needed. I don't know how to do that and I don't know if these are the same field or if they are actually different somehow.

Additionally, if you search for LCCN you get Library of Congress Control Number(Q620946). This one does not include any of the aliases from the other two. Now the first two are obviously properties and the latter is the Wikibase item about the thing, but should it also include the previously mentioned aliases? Reguyla (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't errors and merger would be very wrong. The Library of Congress simply has multiple identifier systems:
All different systems, with different numbers, used in different ways. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unit-based properties - a work-around[edit]

I'm about to propose a number of properties for chemicals (and later other things), to facilitate the impending Freebase import.

A number of these might use unit-based measurements, such as a property for molar mass (Q145623). We await data types for unit-based measurements, but a work-around would be to define properties such as "molar mass in g/mol", whose value would simply be a number.

Similarly, we could have "length in metres", "speed in kmh", etc.

We would have the option at a later date to employ a bot to convert statements using such properties, to unit-based equivalents.

What does the community feel, about using this method?

Courtesy @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer to avoid this kind of manipulation which just add more work later to purge the database and all information documentation about these temporary properties. We were waiting until now for the numeric datatype with unit and I find stupid to create the temporary properties just for 6 months (I assume to have the new datatype for the end of the year). Snipre (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
+1 to Snipre. -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
see Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/05#Open_for_SI-unit_properties --Pasleim (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see the attraction to just get on with it and do something but for me personally I have lots of other things to be getting on with so I'm not interested in getting involved with stuff that will be abortive. Filceolaire (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea and I'm a little confused about what @Snipre: means with how these will be "temporary"... Are you proposing that the mass of an electron will change in six months? —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@@koavf: The properties would be temporary. They'd propagate, and then we'd have to unpropagate them after we get numbers with units. --Izno (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I'm unclear as to why this is seen as a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea in principle, but given the massive amount of data that might come from Freebase, doing it for anything but Freebase is preferable. Besides that, even the number datatype needs improvement before being used more widely. --- Jura 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It makes it complicated to convert the statements when the right datatype finally comes. For example, if you today add the distance to The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (Q578895) in a property with "length in meters", when the original source tells the "length in miles", it becomes difficult for the bots to know what the original source told. The risk is that that statements stays with "length in meters" even if the source never told that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a hypothetical problem, and no more likely to occur than a bot entering the wrong unit when we do have unit-based data types. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I have a lot of data from Statistics Sweden, with the "area in hectare (Q35852)". If I add those numbers here into a property for "area in km2", can you guarantee that the robots who later converts the data to the new property will automaticly do that correctly? Who else than Statistics Sweden uses ha as unit? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Still a hypothetical problem, and again no more likely to occur than you entering the wrong unit when we do have unit-based data types. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It's precisely because there is a vast amount of data available that I proposed this work-around. Please explain why the existing numerical datatype is a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Vast amount of data means vast amount of rework. If it would just help people start building better infoboxes, this would be another question. Anyways, I suggest you read Pasleim's comment. --- Jura 17:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Reworking that is easily done by a bot I have read Pasleim's comment. And this has nothing to do with infoboxes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Reject proposal per Jura1. I think it's trivial to point out that we must reflect our sources. Pigs' assertion that it's a "hypothetical problem" is clearly wrong.

I think the issue of converting properties after the provision of the number with unit property is a problem also, but of lesser importance in this case. --Izno (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Not only is the problem hypothetical. but rejecting it on the basis that "we must reflect our sources" is a red herring. When we have sources that use "molar mass in g/mol", "length in metres", etc, then having matching data type does reflect them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
So, your opinion is that we should create one property for every possible unit, "lenght i meter", "length in kilometer/centimeter/Ångström/astronomic units/lightyears/parsec/English miles/Swedish miles/old Swedish miles/Värmland miles/Uppland miles/Småland miles" etc? That would solve the problems you describe as "hypotetical", but it would most likely not solve every issue, since the number of potential usefull units is very large. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Labs outage[edit]

Due to a labs outage, some scripts and tools are not working at the moment. There is no ETA for a fix. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Links between a cycling team and its 2015 season[edit]

Hi everybody. Today I come to ask for advice on how to connect the element of a cycling team 2015 season with the element of this cycling team, in order to be fixed on the best way forward.

Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think property part of (P361) can be used to link the item for the 2015 squad to the item for the team. Filceolaire (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Massive merge suggestion or duplicate[edit]

I am trying to merge Gauss-Jordan elimination into Gaussian elimination (though I think the name should indeed be Gauß-Jordan elimination) but I face a handful of sitelinks in Gauss-Jordan elimination that are either to stub or to articles addressing only the matricial version of the algorithm (the other article addressing in this case the system version). I see why these languages did so, but it seem to be an unnecessary split (as e.g. the fr and en version managed to do well in a single single article) and it gives the illusion that there are only a few languages with articles on this item.

As is, I see to solutions:

  1. Send merges suggestions to the offending languages
  2. Add the sitelinks from Gaussian elimination for the languages were there a single article to Gauss-Jordan elimination

But I don't know if 2 could (or should for that matter) be done, and if there is an usual way to do 1. Suggestions?

Evpok (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the items you linked was "Darius" ([[Q265867), maybe you are looking for Gaussian elimination (Q2658).
In obvious cases, it's generally worth tagging the articles for merging and using Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) on one item here.
It doesn't look like that to me, but I couldn't give a suggestion on how to interlink them either.--- Jura 15:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Evpok:. These are different methods and they are unlikely will be merged. You can learn about it in ruwiki articles. --Infovarius (talk) 19:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In general, it is not a good idea to try and make decisions for a Wikipedia. There are Wikipedia's that are mad for merging (enwiki has merged many pages for topics that each deserve a page), and Wikipedia's that are trying to get as many pages as possible, no matter if there is substance (like svwiki). Pragmatically, if different concepts are involved, each should have a Wikidata page of its own; if it is the same concept use "duplicate page". - Brya (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Projects that today are hosts to more than more one language, cannot be merged until all languages gets a project of their own. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Q20155475 dates of establishment of congregation vs. building first erected vs. current structure erected[edit]

Hi, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church (Q20155475) has more than one relevant date. Should we split the building and congregation to separate items? edits welcome. --Jeremyb (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Building and organization have to be separated. The question is to know if the organization is really a independent organization or just a subdivision of the Methodist church. I don't think that all administrative levels of a church are relevant to have an item. I am not a specialist of the protestant churches but if I compare to the catholic structure, I will say this is a parish of the Methodist church. Snipre (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I barely know anything at all about any sort of Christianity. cc Danrok because he's also edited the item. --Jeremyb (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A bit problematic! The word church has at least two meanings, one is the building, and the other is the organisation. A similar situation exists with things like libraries and museums. All of these tend to be lumped together in a single Wikipedia article (building and organisation). They should probably be split into multiple items, along the same lines as companies, e.g. 8 Canada Square (Q572887) is the building, HSBC Holdings (Q190464) is the occupant and possibly the owner as well. In the case of business organisations and their buildings, these tend to already be split on Wikipedia, so not much of a problem with those. Danrok (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It is maybe so in English, but it does not have to be like that in other languages and understandings of the word. I am Christian, but neiter Lutheran or Catholic, so I maybe see it differently from other persons. I consider "kyrka" normally either to be a building specially designed for some purpose, or the community between Jesus and his followers. For the organisation, I use the word "församling". If the building does not have a tower, icons, altar, painted glass or anything you typically consider as church-like, I do not use the word "kyrka". Instead, I then use "församlingslokal". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the article then it is clear that this congregation is a defined organisation with it's own start date etc. This organisation is associated with the African Methodist Episcopalians which is associated with the Methodist Episcopalians. Associated with this organisation are three different buildings, which have succeeded each other on the same site, with new buildings being built as earlier buildings were destroyed. Filceolaire (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Are there rules for the main label[edit]

The current Pope Q450675 has a en-label of just Francis. Although it is has aliases, if I want to quickly produce a list of people born on 17 Dec 1936 I would only use the label and get the following result.

Frank Martinus
Tommy Banks
Francis
Al Miller
Kenneth Robinson

The single name Francis looks out of place. To me the main label should be a bit more descriptive but I can not find any policies or guidelines? Periglio (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

See Help:Labels. Personally I think his English label should be "Pope Francis I". Filceolaire (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it should include "Pope", because he is not commonly referred to as just "Francis", although I'm not so sure about the "I". My impression is that "Pope Francis" is more common than "Pope Francis I", see for example the Twitter account and the Vatican news page. - Nikki (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I changed it to Pope Francis, same as the main title in the article. Not sure if it is correct to say Pope Francis I until such time as there is a Pope Francis II? There might never be a Pope Francis II, in which case the numbering is never needed. Danrok (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Pope Francis For what it's worth, Francis has declared that his name in English is "Pope Francis" and not "Pope Francis I"--he has been explicit on the matter. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for changing. But for future reference, is there any official policy on labelling? Periglio (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No rule or an unique rule: the label should be clear enough to allow a clear identification of the concept defined by the item. Snipre (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Now one risks confusing him with Francis Pope (Q20160365). Maybe the list should give a bit more context than the mere label. --- Jura 14:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I prefer short names, i.e. Francis over Pope Francis, but both are sufficiently short. Also, in a list like this that is meant for human consumption, I would always state "LABEL (DESCRIPTION)" - Wikidata relies on the Label/Description pair to being both unique and identifying, whereas the label itself is not.

But one thing with the pope - it should be consistent with the other popes. So don't just change Francis to Pope Francis if it is decided that this is the right thing to do, but do it for all popes (and adapt the aliases respectively). Such a change might need a bit more consensus. --Denny (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It is really odd now, if one looks at the entire User:Jura1/List of popes. --- Jura 15:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
An alternative would be to add something else than the label to describe every item in your list. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Periglio should add something in the line with autodesc, e.g. P106 or P39, P27. --- Jura 09:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it already exists: Autolist1. --- Jura 09:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It's only odd because someone has taken it upon themselves to change all of the English pope labels by deleting the word Pope. It is normal, in English (US and UK) to refer to Pope Francis as Pope Francis and not Francis, same applies to all popes. See for example [1]. Danrok (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
And that is a good reason to not have a universal policy for labels in all languages. In my language is it not natural to have "pope" in the label here, while we often add the word "county" or "municipality" in almost every item for those kinds of entities, while many other languages prefer to not use such words in their label. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
In which case the EN version should say Pope Francis and your language will say Francis? The universal policy can be that a label reads correctly in whichever language it is. I accept now that the description is an integral part of that, but "Pope Francis, 266th Pope of the Catholic Church" still read betters for me than "Francis, 266th Pope of the Catholic Church" Periglio (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It reads "Franciskus", since that is the name in use here. That name has been confirmed by the local catholic churc, I think. The description reads "present pope", but that is less good, better would be only "catholic pope (20XX-)". I try to avoid "266" since such numbers can be disputed. (Was s:t Peter number 1?). I see some projects add such numbers to Swedish kings, but I do not recommended that at all, since we do not know who number one was. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not use names from naming authorities (Library of Congress Name Authority File for writers' names, Getty Union List of Artist Names for artists, etc.)? DavidJHowe (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Something we could do?[edit]

I ran into this clip. Maybe some inspiration for tools to build for Wikidata? Multichill (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

HTTPS[edit]

22:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How do we classify humans who don't have an occupation?[edit]

In genral for humans we have

<instance of><human> and
<occupation (P106)><whatever> and
<field of this profession (P425)><more detail>

What do we do for martyrs and murderers and children? These aren't occupations. Filceolaire (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And this is why having a single P31 is a bad thing. (One of the few times I disagree with User:Emw.) --Izno (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: there will only be one P31, whatever properties we add :) But I really don't get how it is related to filceolaire problem. With one typing properties we can still create as many class as we need. With class classification we can sort them by domain or whatever we want (see help:classification. TomT0m (talk)
  • "What do we do for martyrs and murderers and children? "
    For the last two there are specific properties: "convicted of" and "date of birth". --- Jura 01:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Not everyone should have the occupation (P106) filled in. And if you persist on entering something you can use the "no value" or even "unknown value" options. Edoderoo (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC) PS: right now there are 1.2 million people with no occupation (P106), so pick a few to fill it in.

and martyrs? Filceolaire (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should have something like "in general". Wikidata is not an ontology, and we have no rules that every human has to have an occupation. We only have the rule that everything with an occupation is most likely a human. Why can't we just set "instance of" -> "human" and "instance of" -> "martyr"? -- Bene* talk 11:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
It just occurred to me that we can state <cause of death (P509):martyr ( Q6498826)>. Filceolaire (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That's not really useful though. e.g. Joan of Arc (Q7226) already has cause of death (P509):death by burning (Q468455). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 19:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bene*: All this is not really related to be an ontology or not. Clearly Wikidata is an ontology because it represents in term of properties, items, statements, knowledge, concepts and relations beetween concepts. TomT0m (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but it doesn't say that all humans have to have some properties and should not contain some other properties. This is the openness which makes Wikidata more than a strict ontology. -- Bene* talk 20:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@bene*: it's not really related to beeing an ontology or not, more to strict typing, inferences or not inferences, and if which, which kind of inferences, inconsistency beetween data and rules or inferences, the nature of the rules and so on, open or closed world assumption in inferences and so on. TomT0m (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
How about significant event (P793) to describe a martyrdom or a murder? Periglio (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: Stating that a person has an occupation is not a classification. It's just that knowing his occupation, we can classify him in the class (or list) of persons who have this occupation. Classification is the art of building classes knowing properties of the classified objects. TomT0m (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We have a couple of classification properties but occupation certainly isn't one. -- Bene* talk 20:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
and yet, most users if asked to complete "is a...." about a person would choose an occupation. Saying that <occupation:author> is different from <is an:author> may be true for you but I can't see the difference. Filceolaire (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Completeness of Wikidata queries[edit]

Is there a way to know whether a Wikidata Query is complete or not? Specifically, looking at Query: TREE[3557561][40] currently lists none the children of Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild (Q3557561). When (and how) will a query like that become complete? Gabbe (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Gabbe: one shall assume that it is not complete and will never be. -- Vlsergey (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
In this particular case I guess you mean Query: TREE[3557561][][40] but generally Vlsergey is right: Wikidata will never be complete. -- Bene* talk 20:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bene*: no, that query you provided seems to (recursively) list items that have Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild (Q3557561) as a child. That is, your query provides his ancestors, not his descendents. And let me be clear: I know that Wikidata will never be complete. I was wondering whether a Wikidata Query will ever be. In this specific case, I could use wdq2sparql to turn my query into this one, which is complete. But there are other statements for which even the Sparql queries don't seem to be complete. Gabbe (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This is an example of the latter. It lists none of the children of Aline Caroline de Rothschild (Q4726753). Gabbe (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no way to know if a query has all the valid results. What a query does is provide you with all the results Wikidata holds. As a consequence, the question can be answered in several ways. You can validate one query at a time and compare it with sources. Another answer is by importing as much data that is reasonably correct and validate it against other sources. It will increase the likelihood of a query to have all the valid results. There is a third option, not recommended.. it is pissing in the wind. There is nothing but hard work to complement Wikidata with data that we learn about. It will never be complete but it can be as good as we make it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@GerardM: to clarify, I don't mean that the query is incomplete in the sense that there is true information that isn't on Wikidata. I'm saying that the query is incomplete in the sense that it doesn't reflect all the data that is on Wikidata. Gabbe (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Query (WDQ) will provide all data that is on Wikidata. One proviso, the data is in an external database and it may take 15 minutes for updates to be included. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
... which is why I find it so strange that Query: TREE[3557561][40] doesn't list any of the items that have child (P40) from Victor Rothschild, 3rd Baron Rothschild (Q3557561) (such as Jacob Rothschild, 4th Baron Rothschild (Q2026032) for example). Those statements were added to Wikidata weeks ago. Gabbe (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
All three were added at the same time: once in a while replication fails and statements get skipped. As this is not an e-commerce system, things like that can happen. You could remove the statements and re-add them later or wait for the database to be refreshed. --- Jura 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks! How often does the database refresh, approximately? Gabbe (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Federation of individual sports people[edit]

Is there an item to attribute individual sports people, like tennis players, athlets, boxers, snooker players, etc. to the confederation they played for? E.g. how would Roger Federer be attributed to the Swiss Tennis Federation? For team players, there is Property:P54, but I couldn't find something similar for indivudual sport people. 85.212.3.151 21:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think member of (P463) is what you are looking for. Filceolaire (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #163[edit]

There seems to be a bug with our showcase item en:South Pole Telescope – both start and end time of construction are off by one month: South Pole Telescope (Q1513315) says November 2006–February 2007; article infobox says October 2006–January 2007. DSGalaktos (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

[BUG] Time format does not support BC dates[edit]

I am sure this is already known, but I could not find a ticket for this yet.

E.g.: If you query the Great Pyramid of Giza: http://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=items[37200]&props=571 You should get 2560 BCE as the inception date. However, you get: "+00000000000-00-01T00:00:00Z"

This is a serious issue, because I was building an app for querying also BC dates - however a query such as ...BETWEEN[569,-3000,-2000]... will not work correctly. Please advice.

There is a whole list of date related bugs. See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T87764  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs).

Modeling changed attribution[edit]

Both me and Jane ran into the same problem again. How to model the fact that a painting was first attributed to painter A and later to painter B (or anonymous)? We set the former attribution to rank "deprecated", but how to model the fact that up until a certain date that was an acceptable attribution? See our examples Still Life with Beer Mug and Fruit (Q152123) & Woman standing at the water's edge (Q17335688). Multichill (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

start time (P580) / end time (P582) ? -- Vlsergey (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
As a qualifier? That seems to be a bit odd. It's like saying someone was the creator before 2010. Multichill (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the way you did it in Still Life with Beer Mug and Fruit (Q152123) is fine. Just add end time (P582) and possibly start time (P580) to indicate that this was the common opinion in that time. -- Bene* talk 20:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Lots of things look a bit odd when reduced to standardised statements. That is why we have wikipedia articles where our readers can find out more. Anything that encourages people to look at the articles seems like a good thing to me. Filceolaire (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How about adding a qualifier "P31" with an item labeled (e.g.) "incorrectly attributed" to the van Gogh statement? --- Jura 22:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think setting it to deprecated is Good Enough at the minimum. The problem I'm feeling is that start/end time makes it look like he actually painted it over that time frame and then handed it off to someone else. So at best, you've got an ambiguous looking qualifier. --Izno (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • start time (P580) / end time (P582) might be used as qualifier in normal statement for specific purposes. Changing the rank to deprecated shall not change the meaning of the statement, except marking it as invalid as a whole. So the solution for the problem might be another generic qualifier property deprecated date, which could be also a justification why the deprecated statement exists. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of added fact[edit]

I added a cause of death with sourcing to George Washington. Is the creation of the entities necessary for that sourcing an appropriate time to create an entity that isn't connected to another Wikimedia site... creating an entity for the publisher and for the edition? --Brantgurga (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is. For a periodical or newspaper you can create an item for the periodical and use issue (P433) in the reference to identify the particular edition. See Help:Sources#Scientific, newspaper or magazine_article. Filceolaire (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Allow the empty string as value for properties representing a unique identifier?[edit]

I am currently having a discussion with another user on whether the empty string should be an admissible value for a property representing a unique identifier at Property talk:P1157#Allow or disallow empty values?. If you have a view on the matter, feel free to look at that discussion, add your opinion and your reasons there! --UV (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Commented there as requested. --Izno (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --UV (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Izno is working on fixing his revert. --- Jura 21:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding items to complete the results of a query[edit]

Hoi, I blogged about the IEEE Cledo Brunetti Award. The current data on Wikipedia is incomplete and most of the people do not have an article. I have added missing items on Wikidata for several of them and I demonstrated that it is easy to produce a list on a Wikipedia.

The point I want to make is that it is trivially easy to add missing items. They then exist to complete queries and are notable because they serve a structural need. However this point of view is not universally shared. So I make the point explicit; items may be added to complete the results of a query particularly when the new items are notable in their own right like these winners for this prestigious award. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you wouldn't create the missing items. Everybody seems to agree on that. --- Jura 07:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, create items if that allows you to give more data. And, the feeling you get when you have a more complete set of data is fantastic. It's always nice to see a full timeline on Reasonator or a good family tree. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/03#An item for every street? --Atlasowa (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

A street is an award? ;) --- Jura 06:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata is incapable of representing birth and death dates[edit]

Wikidata has a data model for dates and times and a user interface. While the user interface is not the only method for entering dates and times, many are entered that way, and users of other methods are likely to be influenced by the user interface behavior. Leaving aside the problems of pre-1924 dates, most modern dates cannot be properly represented.

The data model indicates a TimeValue represents an instant in time; we represent the date and time, not just the date. But the user interface does not allow us to enter a time, and only allows us to enter universal time. Also, the before and after fields cannot be entered. The precision can be entered, but the applicable choices, given the other limitations, are day or month. So if I know a person were born on January 15, 1990, in New York City, I have two choices. I can enter the birth date as January 15, 1990, universal time, precision day, which is probably false. Or I can correctly, but very loosely, enter the same, but change the precision to month.

Our real knowledge about the birth is it occurred, including the ends of the intervals, from 05:00 January 15, 1990, UT, to 05:00 January 15, 1990. But if we enter January 15, 1990, UT, precision day, in the data model, what does it mean? Does it mean from 00:00 January 15, 1990, to 24:00 January 15, 1990 UT? The birth might have occurred at 23:59 AM January 15, 1990, New York time, which falls outside this interval. Or a person might see the Wikidata entry and a birth certificate which says 23:00 January 14, 1990 New York time, and decide they are consistent.

Several other interpretations of the precision are possible, such as one full day either side of the stated date. Or it could be interpreted as the day of the month is uncertain, but the month is certain. In summary, we have hardly any idea what our dates mean. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought they were already working on this. Besides, you're almost the only one making a issue of it every time... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It can't be fixed until we know what the solution should look like. And if everyone else thinks false dates are just fine, Wikidata should be shut down and tossed on the scrap-heap of history. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Jc3s5h, imprecise date is not false or wrong date… thousands of people (on wikidata and pedias, and even more on commons) only have a decade, or a century, as date of birth or death… a few hours does not seem such a problem… we're not in Court here, trying to solve difficult murder or medical errors problems ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata represents instants in time. Of course most instants in time are imprecise; only the ones that are defined by authorities are exact. But the degree of precision can be stated. The data model purports to state the precision. But the user interface does not allow the precision to be stated properly. Purporting to state the precision and then knowingly stating an incorrect precision is a lie, and destroys the credibility of the liar.
Furthermore, we have a great many sources which state dates to a rather clear precision; a certain calendar day in a certain time zone or location. The current state of the Wikidata data model and user interface forces us to state a false precision, or degrade the precision contained in the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Only my great grandparents know when my grandfather was born, and they had two different opinions about the exact date. That never became any problem for him. Instead he celebrated his birthday twice every june, instead of making a problem out of it. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The people who created POSIX decided careful consideration of time issues was just too much trouble, and now POSIX is the object of ridicule of those who actually understand time; see this academic paper. If WikiData takes the attitude that there is no need to be able to correctly represent the time of events, either it will be abandoned, or it will be the object of never-ending ridicule, just like POSIX. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The academic paper you link mentions POSIX once (page 7, unless pdf.js’ search is broken), and hardly in a way that I would call “ridicule”: “Yet another misconception reflected in early POSIX standards was that more than one leap second could be inserted at a given time.”
And how is the meaning of “date of birth: January 15, 1990” unclear? That person was born on that day. They celebrate their birthday on that day. Do you celebrate your birthday at the exact minute your birth started, and expect all congratulations to arrive on that exact time? (I certainly don’t, I’m sound asleep at that time ☺)
Of course this leaves room for improvement. There are people whose birth starts shortly before midnight and ends shortly after. And it would of course be nice to be able to record the exact start and end time of the birth (presumably with start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers) in those cases where it’s known. But what we have works for the vast majority of cases, and is in no way “broken” or “unusable”. —DSGalaktos (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The typical entry contains the actual calendar date of the birth or death in the jurisdiction where the event occurred, but purports that the event happened at 00:00 UT +/- zero days. A person who believes the data model will at least get the calendar date right for places with a positive time zone offset, but will get the wrong calendar date for anyplace in the Americas. Since most birth and death dates in the Americas will be wrong, this can hardly be described as "the vast majority of cases". Jc3s5h (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let me give you a use case. Joe user wants to extract the date and place of birth of a list of people who might run for President of the United States for the term beginning Friday, January 20, 2017, and eliminate those who are not eligible on account of age (must be at least 35 years old). An entry is found for Mary Smith, born January 21, 1982, precision day. Before, after, and time zone are all set to zero. Thus she was born at 00:00 January 20, 1982, universal time, +/- zero days. Also, she was born in New York City, and the date in New York City at that time was January 20, so she is eligible to be the next president (as far as age is concerned). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikidata to determine who is eligable for presidency, I would say: use official sources like birth registers. Mbch331 (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Jc3s5h Your problem is not a problem of WD but a general problem of precision. WD is not more accurate that any other dictionaries or encyclopedias so stop to say that WD is incapable of representing birth dates. If you have a accurate date and time of birth or death WD gives you th possibility to enter this kind of informations. But as few persons take care of details like this one I don't understand why WD should be more catholic than the pope. Really Jc3s5h, when you ask the birth date to one of your friends, do you ask him too the time with the time zone ? So why do you want to have another reaction with WD ? Snipre (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: “The typical entry […] purports that the event happened at 00:00 UT +/- zero days” – it does no such thing. The precision of the entry is “day”; anything beyond that (”00:00”, “UT”) is your own interpretation. (I assume that we will eventually have higher time precisions; I suspect that timezone complicatedness might be the reason we don’t have it yet. (But I’m a nobody, don’t quote me on any of that.)) —DSGalaktos (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Snipre's claim "WD is not more accurate that any other dictionaries or encyclopedias" seems badly written. Wouldn't we want to say "WD is no less accurate that any other dictionaries or encyclopedias"? But WikiData is less accurate than most modern dictionaries, books, or encyclopedias, because they usually get the calendar date correct for the place a vital event occurred. If the data is entered through Wikidata's user interface, Wikidata always gets it wrong for the Americas.
If I ask my friend for his/her birthdate, it might be because I want to take her for a drink in a bar. Or maybe I'm hoping he will be able to get a reduced rate on a ski lift ticket due to his advanced age. In any such case, the time of day of the birth does not matter, but the birth date does. Due to the legal treatment of birth dates, small differences in time are magnified to large differences in time. A minute becomes a day for the lift ticket or the alcoholic beverage. A minute becomes 4 years if running for president. A minute becomes a lifetime if a person was born one minute after a country became independent, and the child wishes he could have the citizenship of the pre-independence country. A minute becomes death if the person is in the last batch of people to be inducted into the armed forces just before the end of a war. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
My passport doesn’t even include my birth time of day. It’s not even possible for a bar, or a ski lift, or whomever to get my age to that precision even if they cared about it (which I, for almost all cases, highly doubt). Likewise, the notion that soldiers in the armed forces were sorted by minute of their birth is ridiculous. And for the US presidency, I don’t think the constitution states at which exact point during the inauguration ceremony the minimum age of 35 must be fulfilled, so even in that case I think the relevance of the minute of birth is highly dubious.
I’m sorry, but I just feel like you’re trying really hard to create a problem that doesn’t exist. —DSGalaktos (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course a ski lift counter clerk doesn't care about the minute of a patron's birth. But if if a skier's birth certifcate says the skier was born at 23:59 January 1, 1950 (the time zone being implied by the place of birth), that skier will have an ID (such as driver license or passport) that says January 1, 1950 and when the skier walked up to the Killington Mountain ticket counter on January 1, 2015, that skier paid $78. The next skier in line, who's birth certificate says 00:01 January 2, 1950, had a driver license that said January 2, 1950, and that skier paid $92. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I very much agree with Jc3s5h's points here. The date data explicitly says that all dates are in UTC, which is clearly not how we're using them, making the data ambiguous and inaccurate. Fortunately, I think there's an easy remedy for this. Given that the UI doesn't yet allow any sort of easy editing of time zone data, I assume all dates are currently set to timezone:0. I recommend that we ask the dev team to replace all of these with data indicating that the time zone is unknown, and default in the future to unknown time zone unless the user specifically adds it, instead of the current practice of defaulting to UTC. Thus, dates like January 15, 1990 by default have an assumed range of 48 hours. --Yair rand (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not as simple as replacing the data. Currently, there is no syntax in the data model to represent an unknown time zone. Also, allowing for an unknown time zone is not the only possible solution. The user interface could be altered to allow entry of time zone, before, and after. Then a correct date, such as June 22, 2015, time zone = -240 minutes, precision day, before = 0, after = 1, could be entered for a birth that occurs today on the east coast of the US and which is mentioned in tomorrow's newspaper with only the date of birth stated.
Then, we would know that nearly all vital events with precision day, before = 0, after = 0, and time zone = 0 are erroneous. Such entries could be flagged for correction. Perhaps barriers to reading such entries could be errected, such as requiring queries to set a flag true indicating the requester is willing to accept dubious dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the syntax needs to be extended to allow an unknown time zone. In many cases we will neither know the time of day nor the time zone, giving a normal range of 48 hours. Presumably, extending the interface to allow inputting time zones and ranges is something that's planned eventually, but I suspect we're not going to see it any time soon. (How do before/after even work, by the way?) Having a range of 48 hours doesn't mean the data is dubious any more than dates that only say "20th century". --Yair rand (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
In the user interface, precision, before, and after just don't work. In the data model, precision gives the units of measure for before and after. Before and after give the number of precision units the time could be before or after the stated time. So if the user interface were fixed and all we knew was that someone was born 22 June 2015 with no hint of the location, it could have been as early as 00:00 on Christmas Island in the -14 hour time zone (10:00 UT June 21) or as late as 23:59:59 on Baker Island in the +12 hour time zone (11:59:59 UT June 23). So we could set the precision to 12 (which means hour), set the time zone to 0 minutes, set the date/time to 00:00 January 22, 2015, set before to 14, and set after to 36. Of course, other settings would create the same range of uncertainty, such as date/time of 12:00 January 22, 2015, before = 26, after = 24. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe a solution would be that the interface allows to store the information that is found in the sources? UTC before that existed is a derived information. Eldizzino (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Taiwan Problem[edit]

Hi all, I would appreciate it if you can join the discussion between me and Neo-Jay regarding Taiwan (Q865) and Republic of China (Q13426199) here. —Wylve (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Pick some "official" source if you can, e.g., WIPO uses "Taiwan, Province of China", that's also what you find on ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 if enwiki got it right (ISO 3166 is a non-free standard.) –Be..anyone (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood the dispute. It seems to be about whether the Republic of China as it existed from 1912 to 1949 and the Republic of China since 1949 (commonly called "Taiwan") are the same entity or not. --Yair rand (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
My opinion is that in some ways they are the same and in other ways they are different. There are statements you can make about one which are not correct if applied to the other so I believe two separate items are needed. Filceolaire (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Statements about one that would be incorrect of the other, even if qualified by start/end time? Could you give an example of such a statement? --Yair rand (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Donostia-San Sebastián Wikidata Editathon (03.07.2015)[edit]

Hi Wikidatans,

We are organizing a Wikidata Editathon in order to encourage Wikidata edits about San Sebastián (wikidata:Q10313) and its culture. The motivation behind the event is that San Sebastián will be European Capital of Culture in 2016. Moreover, we are organizing this event to encourage people in our region to edit and use Wikidata.

We will work in teams and we will edit items of different topics (e.g. music, literature, points of interest related to San Sebastián). We will show them the different use cases one can go through in Wikidata (e.g. create an item, enrich the description of an item, connect items to an external data source, import and review data from Freebase, etc.). We will also discuss application ideas and talk about collaborative systems.

The event will take place in San Sebastián (Spain), on July 3rd, at the Faculty of Informatics (UPV/EHU). You can find more details (in Spanish) here: https://sites.google.com/site/donostiasansebastianenwikidata/

If anyone is interested in either participanting or helping out (resolving doubts or explaining guidelines that one should take into account while editing Wikidata), please let us know. We would be really happy to have you there. You can write an email to: dssenwikidata@gmail.com

Cheers,

Cristina Sarasua ( Criscod)

Hoi, I can imagine that you want to have all the information in the languages of Spain available on all the content.. Consider using Reasonator with Widar enabled. The good news is that as you add more labels in any of the languages, you will find them propagate to all the items where a statement is used with that item.. If you have questions, let us know :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks! Really nice. We will consider it.Criscod (talk)

former country (Q3024240)[edit]

@Infovarius: When did England start to be a former country [2]? And when Istanbul [3]? Eldizzino (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Eldizzino: welcome to Wikidata. You must be confused, Infovarius' talk page is at user talk:Infovarius. Multichill (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Eldizzino: In ENGLISH, it maybe looks strange to see England as a "former country". In my language, England is not a country. In English, You use the same word to describe the status of England today as you do with Germany, Colombia and Japan. In other languages, you cannot be sure that the same word is used to describe those places. I use the same word to describe England as when I describe Norrland (Q203505), and Norrland has never been a independent nation with a constitution of it's own. Do not look to deep into the glass of your own language, look into what the word means instead of how it is spelled. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander, Infovarius: There are two questions:
  1. The claims "instance of" for persons and organizations and are valid for a certain period of time, a start and end point could be attached as qualifier. Would be interesting to see, what language does not allow to make a statement "instance of X" for the past. If there really is a language that cannot make the statement that a former country "was an instance of a country", then maybe that language would need a complete duplication for many more classes? "Carlos I" - "former human", "Santa Marta" - former ship?
  2. The question what term to use, is another one. In Wikidata England and Norrland are instances of different classes, the issue about translation of terms that you brought is solved for these. There is country (Q6256) "country" and Malta is not marked directly as one, but is marked as sovereign state (Q3624078). But, I see "sovereign state" as a subclass of "state" which is marked as "said to be the same as country". I have no position on whether sovereign state is a subclass of state is true. Maybe it is for many Romance language influenced languages that use state/estat/estato/estado/stat etc, but maybe it is not universally true.
Combining both: England is a country of the UK, and was a sovereign state. Now, "former country" is dubious. It is not former in the sense of country as some kind of region. It is only in the sense of country as "sovereign state", but then the label could probably be adjusted to match sovereign state (Q3624078). Eldizzino (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There is also some discussion at User_talk:Neo-Jay#former_country_.28Q3024240.29. It is also related to storing time information and the discussion started above at Wikidata:Project chat#Wikidata is incapable of representing birth and death dates by Jc3s5h. Eldizzino (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

former XYZ in instance of (P31) statements[edit]

@GerardM, Neo-Jay, Infovarius: One could disallow any "former XYZ" as part of an "instance of" claim, when it means, that something used to be a XYZ for some time. But then, one need to have a qualifier indicating the end. If "end time" has limitations, there might be some reason to have "former XYZ" on an item. Eldizzino (talk) 13:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So? It is ridiculous to have "former XYZ". Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: A place might be an agglomeration of ruins, and formerly a city. Is the item then "agglomeration of ruins" or "city"? Or two items, a city with ruins and current population=0 and another one that is an agglomeration of ruins? Eldizzino (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This is why we have start time (P580) and end time (P582) qualifiers. --Yair rand (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: If end time is in the past, but not any further specified? Eldizzino (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Not even specified to the nearest year, century, millenium, or further? Then use end time (P582): unknown value. --Yair rand (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe instance of (P31) should have only values that can't be changed over time. For example Berlin (Q64) is always human settlement (Q486972), it will never be human (Q5). But would one say Berlin (Q64) IS federal capital (Q257391), he need to make an assumption about time (current time, past, future?).
  • my idea is that class of object is something that never change. Everything else shall be placed in distinct properties. Same with "former XYZ". Since it's not an immutable property of object, it shall not be placed into instance of (P31). -- Vlsergey (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    A city changes size and becomes a town, becomes a settlement (in the case of abandonment). Your idea clearly isn't useful. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Whatever size it has, it's always human settlement (Q486972). The idea is to prevent changes in P31 once object described. Currently P31 is very polluted field. It even has values like big city (Q1549591) that shall never appear in element at all. So, there are two directions. First is to say "everything is okay, go on". Then feel free to add whatever value you want to be, including "former XYZ". Second way is to try cleanup this field, introduce some criteria. And remove 80% of today-only values. -- Vlsergey (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    False dichomoties rarely work as arguments. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    neither text untranslatable by google translate ;) -- Vlsergey (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Try "dichotomies" instead. >_> --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Vlsergey, Izno: If a settlement got the status of a town, it should be said under which system it is a town or city. So, New York (City) is a human settlement. How could one store the information that it became a town/city - as officially decreed by some government? Maybe one can go on and let the field get filled up with anything people want, but the preferred P31 should be something that ~never changes. Eldizzino (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Eldizzino: the best thing here will be to create "official status" property (main snak is status itself, when received, given by). -- Vlsergey (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Vlsergey: Thank you. Would you allow only one single "instance of" claim? An example of having multiple such claims is Baja California (Q58731) - and all but one are wrong, this entity never was a province of Spain. Eldizzino (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Eldizzino: from my point of view it should be territory (Q183366). Well, it's not like "single value rule", I just can't remember a case when single object can't be described by single "read only" class. If some object have two "read only" values in P31 they probably can be merged into single class. -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Merging classes along orthogonal distinctions is bad. It's why Wikipedias have such a hard problem with categories. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    @Izno: Not really, it's because it's hard to get the parent categories in Wikipedia and because there is no distinction beetween classes and instances. In Wikidata, by convention, all instances of a subclass is an instance of the superclass and WDQ has a construction to this. So its much less of a problem if Wikidatan uses constructions like CLAIM[31:(TREE[5][][279])] in queries. TomT0m (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    We already have this in the form of the "preferred" ranking. If there are actually wrong statements, those should be removed (or sourced and qualified). All statements in general should have a source and qualification and this is no less true simply because we're dealing with P31. As for your assertion that it was never a province of Spain, I'm skeptical. The entire country of Mexico (and a good chunk of the US!) was to some extent. --Izno (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Having classes for "former something" as an alias to "instance of something qualified as an end date" could be useful as well. TomT0m (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Izno: The United Mexican States is a federation. That federation never was a province of Spain. The State of Baja California was established from the Baja California Norte Territory which was a result of a split of Baja California Territory, which in turn never was a province. But the territory they cover once was covered by one or more provinces of Spain. But there are extra items for theses. If succeeding entities are all provinces of the Spanish Empire, then the list of provinces of the Spanish Empire is growing everyday a new such entity is established. Eldizzino (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Now this is ridiculous : Author (1500–1490) ♂; spanish writer[edit]

This is the autodesc of Martí Joan de Galba (Q1338820).

Well, I know, because I've been contributing for quite a time that it means that Martí Joan de Galba was born in the 15th century, and died in 1490, but really... this does not look serious at all.

The display of the century with the last year of the century gives really bad effect.

So, how would it be possible to make it look just a tiny weeny bit more readable for someone who is not accustomed to it ? in BNF AC, the coding is 1400 (for born in 15th century) and 1499 (for died in 15th century). At least, noone is born after one's death :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole issue of how to handle "century" dating is handled poorly here, and additionally requires localization. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I've encountered a lot of issues like this. I mostly change the date to 1401 and precision to century. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
What... Why does the system even allow that? I'm very confused. --Yair rand (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Theoretically, Sjoerddebruin is doing it the right way. Unfortunately, 99% of the people do not know how to read that, and seen 1400 (or 1401) ±100 as exactly 1400 or exactly 1401, as they forget about the ±100. Edoderoo (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, an uncertainty of 100 years would allow the person to be born in a century different from the sourced one. So I believe in the specific case based on the available information, the birth year could better be specified as 1445±45 (i.e. in the interval from 1400 to 1490), or perhaps something more narrow, e.g. 1440±40 if a 'writer' is deemed to be at least 10 years old... Lklundin (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is more correct. What would be better is 1490 -90 +0, since the only actual datum we have is the death datum. I.e. it's not an arbitrary value. But I haven't looked into whether precision can be reflected in this fashion. --Izno (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting change by Sjoerddebruin. I wonder if this should be filled in that way by default. In any case, changing it manually seems cumbersome. And yes, it's hard to display these values correctly in every tool .. --- Jura 15:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
We rather have to fix the datetime datavalue. If it provides an upper/lower bound we should also use that. Introducing some qualifier solution might be easier in the short term but won't work for queries etc. -- Bene* talk 06:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The planned query engine should be flexible enough to combine any piece of property with optional qualifier into single predicate to select interested items. In that case it does not matter if the uncertainty is defined in time property itself or somewhere else. As soon as the final solution is provided all current qualifiers might be converted to new syntax using bot. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The qualifier was created precisely because "we" wouldn't be fixing the datetime datavalue anytime soon. It already has lived way beyond the short term. I think this is something to bear in mind. --- Jura 06:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Sjoerddebruin wrote "I've encountered a lot of issues like this. I mostly change the date to 1401 and precision to century." If Sjoerddebruin is using the user interface, I'm afraid this isn't right, because the user interface does not provide access to the before and after fields. If one uses the user interface to enter 1401 and precision century, what ends up in the database is a date of "+1401-00-00T00:00:00" (whatever that means), precision century, before = 0, after = 0. So this means a malformed date +/- zero centuries.

A valid entry would be "+1401-01-01T00:00:00" for the time, precision century, before = 0, after = 1, but there is no way to enter that with the user interface. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just doing the best I can, it's always better than the previous value. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Abbots and their abbeys[edit]

Do we have a property for abbots as "abbot of" or did they "manage" their abbies? Same thing for "Priest of xxx parish" and so forth. Do we have a religious modelling center where I can ask q's like this one? Thx Jane023 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not doing it same as for bishops - like in Heinrich Mussinghoff (Q66618) use position held (P39) with abbot (Q103163) and with the qualifier of (P642) link to the monastery. To further specify that position, additional qualifiers like start time (P580) or replaces (P1365) can be used. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. Jane023 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons category under Statement or Other sites ?[edit]

If there exists a commons category (not to be confused with a commons page) for a given item, then it is technically possible to add this category as a Statement as well as an entry under 'Other sites'. In browsing random items one comes across some that have their commons category listed as a Statement, others that have it under 'Other sites', and some that have the category specified twice, one in each place. What is the preferred place to specify the Commons category? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Preferred is both, but sometimes that isn't possible, because the commonscat is also linked to a category item. In that case only a statement is sufficient. A sitelink without a statement is incorrect and should have the statement added as well. Mbch331 (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I still don't think commons categories should be linked to anything other than items about categories. This was also, by the way, the guideline on Commons itself. Otherwise list it as a statement with Commons category (P373). Jared Preston (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Since there sometimes isn't a clean 1:1-relation between a category on Commons and a subject on Wikipedia, I would say that you are free to use both. There is no category on Commons for the former Swedish municipality of Junsele. But there is a category covering the same area. Since a category on Commons cannot be added to more than one item here, you have to use statements in those cases. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all the responses. If there is a single editor with any patience left, then I would appreciate a comment, whether this edit reflects a correct understanding of the policy. Thanks again. Lklundin (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Lklundin: yes, that's great! Jared Preston (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Lklundin, Innocent bystander: There is an RfC in the pipe for this: Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Catégorie_commons_P373_et_"Autres_sites", I'll translate it in a minute. TomT0m (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Lklundin: why add -and duplicate- it, if it is already there in Other sites? Eldizzino (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that there is yet another model: adding it as qualifier in some statements. Sample: Special:PermanentLink/223491092#P119 --- Jura 05:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A consequence of the lack of Arbitrary Access again? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think this is a good solution and afaik we already had a discussion on this. Please don't add information twice to an item. Commons categories only belong into the dedicated statement and other pages only in the sitelink section. We might decide to switch this around (adding commons categories as sitelinks and galleries etc. as statements) if that helps (would be a break of concept though) but duplicating the data is worse. -- Bene* talk 06:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it does anything if you add it as a statement. Most of the time it doesn't even link to Commons. You can't even check if it works. Really useless. --- Jura 06:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

API usage[edit]

I just don't understand the basics. Maybe there are explanations but I didn't find them. Simple problem (result as json):

  • I've got the Wikidata ID and want to get the Imdb ID.
  • I've got the Imdb ID and want to get the Wikidata ID.

Example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42 . I don't want a complete export of all data of this item but only the part "property":"P345","datatype":"string","datavalue":{"value":"nm0010930","type":"string"}" --88.76.208.17 10:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@88.76 Is this of any help to the first part? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For the second part, no easy way exists yet. You can query Wikidata for those values using SPARQL ([4]) but there will be better ways to query those, see phabricator:T99899. -- Bene* talk 11:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For the second part WDQ API is much easier: STRING[345:"nm0010930"]. --Lockal (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. So this would mean using 2 different APIs, the "default" one (if this is the right word) and WDQ. --88.76.208.17 11:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Small note: both WDQ and SPARQL API are based on WikiData dumps, so results can be a few hours old. phabricator:T99899 is about implementing a real time solution. --Lockal (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Links linked to the wrong article[edit]

This issue is common in relation to the Arabic Wikipedia (ar). A general Arabic article would get linked to a specific English article (I'll explain), and so a visitor to the general English article wouldn't find the article in Arabic linked in the Languages section.

A specific example would help me both settle my issue, and illustrate it: the article Cardamom is the general article about cardamom, where most people would generally end up while looking for that subject. The article Elettaria cardamomum is what I called a 'specific article'. It's a specialized article under the general 'Cardamom'.

The Arabic Wikipedia has a page for هال (cardamom), but not for Elettaria cardamomum. Yet the Arabic page is linked to Elettaria cardamomum instead of Cardamom.

I wanted to remove the link from Elettaria to be able to link it to Cardamom, but I got the error that I can't remove a link unless the linked page has been deleted or merged. Neither of these is the case, this is just a case of wrong linking.

The two items in question are cardamom-yielding plants and Elettaria cardamomum

Please advise.


Please ping me on my English wiki talk page upon replying --Hexafluoride (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Digging into the history of the specific case, @Brya: help?

In the more general case, you have to ask yourself the question: what is the subject of the article? The general/specific distinction is more or less useless in this case. --Izno (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We are dealing here with three kinds of concepts
  • Cardamon, the spice
  • cardamon-producing plants, as a group
  • the individual species of cardamon-producing plants
The page هال has a taxobox claiming that its topic is Elettaria cardamomum, so it is not surprising that it is linked there. Of course, should this be false, the taxobox could be removed (apparently the introduction does match that of "cardamom-yielding plants"). No idea about the technical aspect. - Brya (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Brya: A lot of Arabic Wiki articles are un-Wiki, be it in formatting, or provided information. The هال is talking about all three concepts at the same time. It seems like it started as Elettaria cardamomum, but further below (and in the intro) it mentions Elettaria & Amomum (cardamom-producing plants), then it goes on to name various uses, both as a spice & "medical benefits" (again, almost always, in this and any similar article, w/o citation, and often old wives' tales or 'popular factoids')
In this context, the extent of Elettaria mentioning is the intro, and the taxobox (plus the Genera أنواع الهيل وتوزعه section). The article is definitely not going in depth into Elettaria. The rest is a mix of uses as a spice, supposed medical benefits, and then how to preserve the spice (in that section, it continues to mention various folk medicine recipes and uses) Hexafluoride --(talk) 18:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hexafluoride, simply move the sitelink, if you think this is more appropriate. And you should remove the taxobox. --Succu (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the ar link has been removed (it's my first time using Wikidata, so I don't know my way around). Nonetheless, most articles in the other languages seem to direct to the general 'cardamom' article. Maybe there was a move in the the original English Cardamom page at some time that caused this?
And should the whole taxobox come down, or just remove the genus & species (similar to the taxobox in Cardamom)? --Hexafluoride (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I don't see that the 'taxobox' at enwiki is doing any good. Just remove it. - Brya (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Recently deceased at Wikipedia[edit]

"A new report lists people categorized as dead in Wikipedia, but lacking Property:P570. It's updated several times per day. There are about 20 to 30 new entries. There is currently some backlog from the (English,) Japanese, Arabic, Polish and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Items updated first in Wikidata wont appear in the report. These are listed directly in Wikidata's recent deaths".

Thanks to Pasleim for their help to set this up. --- Jura 17:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been using Autolist to generate the list of people classified in the en.wiki category en:Category:Living people but having a date of death (P570) statement on Wikidata. There are roughly 800 remaining. Pichpich (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It might be worth auto-categorizing them in Wikipedia based on property P570. cawiki does that. --- Jura 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the result would actually be catastrophic because in most cases the error is from Wikidata. In many instances, you see that the date of death was added to Wikidata based on faulty Persondata on en.wiki so what you suggest would complete the circle of errors. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, once the initial check is done, maybe some sort of a maintenance category could help. Thanks for working through the backlog for enwiki. It's mostly gone now. --- Jura 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, once the information is added to Wikidata, the 2nd last column on the list (sample Special:PermanentLink/223651231) indicates how many days it took between the death for the information to appear in Wikipedia. (0 = same day) --- Jura 04:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jura for this very efficient tool to fix dates in wikidata. Would it be possible to indicate the number of items in the table somewhere at the top ? so that we have an idea of the task to do ? :)
I guess the grey background is for non-latin alphabets - Is it correct ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently it outputs quite a lot of statistics to its edit history. If you watchlist it, you will see it regularly. We could add some of it to page text as well.
Yes, the background is based on the alphabets. We can refine it further. --- Jura 20:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: I will try to add Template:DR rd numbers to the report's header. --- Jura 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, there are less and less latin-alphabet articles :) - I can do the cyrillic ones, but it would be nice if arabic and asian contributors could do the other languages… I'm never sure if google-translate is ok or not. I recently got an example where GT said "male", when the person was obviously "female", judging by her photograph :D
Also, Jura, do you think you can modify the display format of P570 to match the one for the birth date : it would be easier to sort on death date :D --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Sort on the column for P570 should already work. As the conversion used in P569 sometimes breaks, I'd rather display the actual values for P570. {{#property:P570|from=Q123|format=YYYY-MM-DD}} doesn't work yet ;)--- Jura 15:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Mark Help:sources for translation[edit]

Please can someone mark the Help:sources page for translation ? Thanks. Snipre (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done WD:Translators' noticeboard is better place for such requests though. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata for listing zoo inhabitants[edit]

So, I was thinking, I wonder how many zoos have fennec fox (Q131564) exhibits, but I can't really find out with Wikipedia, so what about on items about zoos, we list what animals the zoo has, then later, a query could be ran to find out the answer to my question. We probably need a new property for this, though I don't have any idea how general the name would be (i.e. "houses" or "species housed"?). Thoughts? --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Adding names to all inhabitants of a special zoo (Q43501)? Wikipedia loves Zoos? How to source that and maintain this in time? --Succu (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I think without a doubt the data needs to be on Wikidata somewhere, you have a better way? Wikipedia does it, but queries are possible at Wikidata, unlike Wikipedia. About the sources, zoo websites almost always have their species listed. Maintaining it? It shouldn't change that much. Sure this requires ambition but there are plenty of other things we're doing that are more ambitious. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Knut (Q159697), an inhabitant of Berlin Zoological Garden (Q154828), died in 2011. What do you think: how many unnamed exhibited insects died at Berlin Zoological Garden (Q154828) in 2011? --Succu (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
While there can still be a maintenance problem, I suppose AmaryllisGardener means listing the species a zoo houses, not all individual animals. Usually a zoo has more than one ice-bear (or none at all), so it will not change that often. Bever (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Correct. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A related issue is how to store animal populations of regions, like how many sheep there are in Australia. Presumably we don't want to have one property for each species, and using qualifiers could be unwieldy. Perhaps once we have unit support we could just say "contains (animal population): 4 polar bears"? Is that outside the scope of how quantity/units are supposed to be used? --Yair rand (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I would think in that case you would just have "Resident Animal": polar bear (Q33609) with qualifier quantity (P1114): 4 Popcorndude (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Haha, I like the idea of a "polar bear" unit. However, I think the qualifier as suggested by Popcorndude should do it as well and might be more intuitive. -- Bene* talk 06:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Complex arbitrary access[edit]

Is it possible to use arbitrary access with x2 or x3 depth + not knowing item IDs? For example, I am on wikipage of Q663846 and i need to get name of the pre-previous asteroid – Q149085. So, there is necessary to use double arbitrary access. I tried something like:
{{#property:P155|from={{#property:P155}}}} and
{{#property:P155|from={{#invoke:Wikidata|pageId|from={{#property:P155}}}}}}, but these doesn't work :)) --92.115.106.250 21:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You may use Lua. But this is probably a bug--GZWDer (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think #property: can output Qid. It could use a few additional options. --- Jura 04:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use arbitrary access at all in such cases? If you are in the Wikipage of Q663846, you can get the relevant label and sitelink of the item related to P155. This is not more complicated than to get the Sitelink and Label of Berlin, when you are in the article of Germany. It's when you need to know the mayor or the coordinates of Berlin, you need arbitrary access. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, did not see "pre-previous"! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Century dating—localization[edit]

Speaking of century dating (as a couple of recent sections have):

How and where can such output be localized? Writing on behalf of Latin Wikipedia, on item Q542518 concerning Property:P569, the output, remarkably enough, is "12. century". That's kind of a hybrid between a German form and an English one. But Latin would really like this to look like "saeculum XII" (or even "saeculum 12"). (Well, Latin would really, really like "saeculo", which is ablative case, but that might be too much to ask, given the many possible uses for such output.) Lua is not implemented on Latin Wikipedia, so invoking a module call is not a good solution here. Is there anywhere to fix this, either here or at translatewiki? StevenJ81 (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

+1 - in french too we use a rather different notation, since we use roman figures for centuries "20. century" would be "XXe siècle" for instance…
I remember asking the same exact question something like a year ago, without any answer :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like Module:Roman (Q14813761) converts 12 -> XII. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. But:
(a) That doesn't help us with century–saeculum–siècle, and
(b) I already said above that Latin Wikipedia is not running Lua, so suggesting a Lua module doesn't help there. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Not using Lua is going to make your job hard using Wikidata, regardless of this specific issue. You should consider having your wiki revisit that decision.

As for this specific case, phab: or WD:Contact the development team are better places to provide this request. --Izno (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Izno:
  1. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but Latin Wikipedia is a small wiki, and I don't know that we have people who can manage it.
  2. I didn't think I was making a request; I thought I was asking a question. Are you telling me that the capability I am asking about doesn't exist? Or are you telling me that probably only the developers know how to get at the answer to the question? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Reply to #1! That is a problem for almost every smaller wiki. On svwiki, am I only aware of one single user with the capacity of creating good modules. That is why we on smaller wikis are thankful that also modules are in CC-BY-SA. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Point taken. But you still have to have users that can manage modules that other people create. And we don't necessarily have those, either. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The people who know without some research whether it can be done are the same people who look at those particular places, and they rarely poke into this page unless they're asked to or have some broad piece of info to convey to a lot of people. My presumption, based on the fact that Hsarrazin gave it a +1, is that one cannot presently internationalize this text, and in that case asking a technical person (in effect making a request to do so) is the right direction to go. --Izno (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll do that. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Regex queries[edit]

Is there a way to do regex queries? Specifically, I'm thinking about something like Query: STRING[345:"tt\d{7}"] AND NOCLAIM[57] to give me items that have a IMDb identifier (P345) starting with "tt" without a director (P57). Gabbe (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It might be a sign that we should have several imdb properties. In this specific case, Query: claim[31:11424] and claim[345] and noclaim[57] would give similar results.--- Jura 11:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but the items I'm looking for won't necessarily have the statement instance of (P31)  film (Q11424). Gabbe (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
... I see now that I can download https://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=claim[345]%20and%20noclaim[57]&props=345 and run the regexp on that on my own computer. Gabbe (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
SPARQL supports regexp queries. The query you wanted to ask is here: films without directors. This is the SPARQL test service on a low-powered server, and I needed to tweak the query a bit until it ran without a timeout. In particular, the way in which I check for the absence of P57 is a bit indirect (optionally finding it and then filtering to the cases where no value was found -- !Bound). There are more direct ways to say this in SPARQL ("NOT EXISTS" filter) but I got a timeout there. The query is limited to 100 results, but if you fix them, the data should catch up (it's synched with Wikidata), so maybe 100 at a time are enough. --Markus Krötzsch (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Module on the spanish Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, I translate the fr:Module:Infobox/Descriptif course cycliste in es:Módulo:Infobox cycling race report. To get informations on article, I have fr:Modèle:Infobox Descriptif course cycliste on the french Wikipedia and I create es:Plantilla:Infobox cycling race report. But there is a little problem, and it dosn't work in the article es:Tour de Francia 2015 when I write {{Infobox cycling race report}}.

Can somebody solve the problem ? I need to do test to see where are the other problems of translation. My goal is to have a common infobox, to work together. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is stated on the page when using the infobox: "Error en la secuencia de órdenes: no existe el módulo «Infobox»". That means that it wants to use the module infobox, which doesn't exist. I checked the French module Infobox and the Spanish interwiki leads me to es:Módulo:Ficha. And that gives the syntax how to invoke an infobox. Mbch331 (talk) 12:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mbch331: Thank you, the first problem is solve. Now, I will continue my tests (I see I must create the function build). Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A comet who is also a planet ?[edit]

Paperoastro

Sarilho1

Ysogo

Cekli829

Manlleus

Meodudlye, with only limited amount of time to spend in the foreseable future.

Romaine - like adding observatory codes + mapping usage (like the observatory codes) Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Astronomy:

Scientist discovered planets that looks like comets. [planet 1]

Could we say :

< GJ436b > subclass of (P279) miga < comet (Q3559) (View with Reasonator) >
 as well with
 ? The question is open :)

TomT0m (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the source here yet, but You do not have to look outside the Solar system, to find such anomalies. Ceres is maybe both a comet and a dwarfplanet, since it looses mass. Some prefer the term "active asteroid" or "rock comet" instead. And Ceres is not the only case. There are several cases of official classification of both an asteroid and a comet. (Not to be confused with asteroid belt comet.) The boundaries between comets and other kind of solar system objects is not as sharp as many believe. The centaur-class of asteroids are often comets that have not shown any coma and tail yet. Since the orbit of centaurs isn't stable, it's only a matter of time until they come close enough to the sun.) And Damocloid asteroids are often considered as comets that have lost their tail and coma (i.e. dead comet). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Nit: instance of (P31). Comeon, Tom. :( --Izno (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And I think there is an item for Exocomet, somewhere out there! :) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
exocomet (Q2855300)! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
See Q2868657 (Q2868657). I know there is at least a handfull of comets that officially are described both as a comet and a minor planet/asteroid. There are also a group of objects that have the behavior of both, without "official recognition", one of them is Ceres. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. http://www.tdg.ch/geneve/actu-genevoise/planete-chevelue-comete/story/13658952

Translate wiki markup[edit]

I can use the tag translate wiki markup in user pages or not? reasons? --นคเรศ (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends of what do you mean with "the tag translate wiki markup". --Stryn (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, i thing it. --Nakare✝ (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@นคเรศ: Of course it is possible, but it's nonsense to flood Wikidata with user page translations. Use {{TranslateThis}} instead. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Null in computing on en.wikipedia.org[edit]

Q543287 appears to have dedicated pages on several other languages' wikis, but on the English Wikipedia, "Null in computing" is just a section of the overall "Null" disambiguation page. How can this be handled? The data form won't let me specify a section of a page as the entry for an item. --23.252.53.30 12:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@23.252.53.30: The simplest is to create the article on enwiki.
A more complex and unfinished is to participate to an ongoing project : WD:XLINK.
The third is a hack : create a page on enwiki, a small article or a soft redirect, to link it to the wikidata item, then (if you want) change this new page to a redirect. TomT0m (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I did the hack. --23.252.53.30 14:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem with the 3rd approach suggested by TomTom is that it can continue to point to a non-existent section even when an article gets created under a slightly different title. Worse we could end up with two items at Wikidata about the same concept.
It's in the nature of Wikidata that not necessarily every Wikipedia has an article on every item.
A 4th approach could be to develop tools that improve navigation between items. --- Jura

I did the simplest and most useful: create an article.

Any tool that can detect more such cases? Items that exist in de,es,fr,it,nl,pt,ru,sv but not in English? Eldizzino (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Links in detective(Q842782) and private investigator(Q1058617)[edit]

Hello, I wanted to add a link between https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9tective and https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%8F) , and I got a message: "The link ruwiki:Детектив (профессия) is already used by item detective (Q842782). You may remove it from detective (Q842782) if it does not belong there or merge the items if they are about the exact same topic." It looks too difficult for me, but maybe somebody else is more talented than me to solve that problem. Cheers --Rene1596 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rene1596: Usually you just have to merge items, but now it seems to be rather an interwiki conflict (continue on that page). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I post my request overthere. --Rene1596 (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

API error?[edit]

"VIP's labels" tool just failed, with the error "nameGuzzler.js : Error : {"servedby":"mw1232","error":{"code":"badtoken","info":"Invalid token","*":"See https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php for API usage"}}". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just tested it on Jasper Publie (Q7000286) and had no problem. Which item did you try to update, which languages did you select and which value did you fill in for the label? Mbch331 (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I tried a couple; but its working now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Change to Help:Label[edit]

I just added the following para to the lead of Help:Label

Note that an item will have multiple labels in different languages. Labels in
different languages may be unrelated to each other (one language uses a
person's birth name as a label and another uses their pen name). Including
aliases means an item can have multiple labels in the same language. If
there is something important about a particular name then that name
should be in a statement as well as in the label, even if this looks like the
same information is being given in two different ways - we have a lot of
different properties for names of items.

OK? Filceolaire (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine! But one major difference is also that you can add a qualifier and a reference/source to a statement, but today, never to a label or alias. A statement can also include more information, like the language of a name. And that a label in a language is written in a certain way, should not be regarded as a stated fact. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the perfect text that proves how broken labels are. Thank you for proving my point. GerardM (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the current labeling system is quite primitive, but it will take some effort to make it better. As a first step I want to see how external identifiers are handled with their own datatype, because labels should be handled in a similar way, with the added problem that they might be multilingual or monolingual.--Micru (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The automated descriptions cobbled together by Magnus is clearly superior. It is just that discussion about this subject is largely refused.
There is no problem with labels. Except that they are very much all too primitive. This is a conscious decision but wrong. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
To me, this addition just confuses "label", "alias" and "name". --- Jura 11:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Download as PDF[edit]

Hello, the option 'Download as PDF' is not what you see, is what you get (wysiwyg). The output is in two columns and it is ignoring tables.
Sample: Wikidata:Mineralogy task force/Native element identifiers
Regards --Chris.urs-o (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons linking[edit]

Hi, why is there no link to the c: project to link to?06:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Lotje (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of properties by which to do so, as described on c:Commons:Wikidata, if that's what you mean. Gabbe (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
As for the sitelinks, it's also possible to link to Commons directly, but under the "Other sites" heading, rather than the "Wikipedia" heading. Gabbe (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Gabbe, adding a link to c: like I did a second ago, is that okay? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the description I linked to (c:Commons:Wikidata) says "By convention, article-like items should only be sitelinked to gallery pages on Commons, and category-like items should only be sitelinked to category pages." I suspect that means that you shouldn't add links to categories on Commons through the sitelinks like you did, but using the property Commons category (P373) instead. Gabbe (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Lower and upper uncertainty[edit]

Hello, for Cosmos Redshift 7 (Q20172932), I wanted to add incertainty on the redshift. From this article, page 6, one sees thatthe redshift is 6.604 +0.001 -0.003. Is it possible to specify this uncertainty or is it only possible, for now, to specify similar lower and upper uncertainty? Pamputt (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not possible now. Snipre (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to separate w:en:comfort women from w:ja:慰安婦[edit]

  • The term comfort women is a literal translation of the Japanese term 慰安婦. But comfort women and 慰安婦 are used in different meaning. 慰安婦 means military prostitutes in any countries and comfort women means mainly military prostitutes in Japanese Empire. For this reason, the contents of w:en:comfort women is nearer to the contents of w:ja:日本の慰安婦 ( Comfort women in japan) than the contents of w:ja:慰安婦. So I propose to separate comfort women from 慰安婦(Q713540) in WikiData.NiceDay (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree and it sounds like there should be no Japanese link at all, because comfort women were not prostitutes. Feel free to delete that sitelink. In English, the word prostitute refers to a woman who chooses to sell herself, whereas the comfort women were forced. It's a philosophical question of course whether or not all prostitutes were forced at some point to sell themselves, but the case of the WWII comfort women is pretty different than the typical prostitute in that they were generally raised in good homes and were not poor at the time that they were taken into custody. Jane023 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. In 2014,The Asahi Shimbun which had insisted on forcibly takeing of "comfort women" from the infantility and strongly, withdrew the news. And then, there are no media or scholar who insist on forcibly taking in Japan. I know that there are some media and scholars other than Japan claims the forcibly taking, however they are not all. What is important is that this is a topic including disputes. So we cannot treat this topic definitely.[5] And at least, they obtained money.[6]IP58xv (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you disagree with. The problem here has nothing to do with the controversy, but just making sure that the concept in one language is the same concept in another language. It gets confusing when the names are the same but the meaning behind the names is different. Leave the naming problems to Wiktionary and just keep to the meaning here. If they mean the same, keep the sitelink, and if not delete the sitelink. Jane023 (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Abbeys (again)[edit]

Hi I am back with another abbey question, this time about heritage names regarding religious orders. Please can someone tell me the difference between monastery (Q44613) and abbey (Q160742)? Also, how do these relate to institute of consecrated life (Q225446)? Thx in advance, Jane023 (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm, how about: "An abbey is a monastery called 'abbey'. A monastery is an abbey called 'monastery'"? --- Jura 12:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
abbey (Q160742) is a special kind of monastery (Q44613). To create an abbay is necessary an official act from Holy See (Q159583) --ValterVB (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC) PS Source: it.wikipedia
enwiki adds some non-catholics: en:List_of_monastic_houses_in_England. --- Jura 13:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
To add to what Valter said: monastery (Q44613) is a much wider concept. There are Buddhist monasteries and Hindu monasteries, for example. An abbey (Q160742), however, is something exclusive to some variants of Christianity. Gabbe (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick responses! But just as in these days where the old Catholic churches are being turned into books stores and mosques, I am looking for a proper heritage term and am not particularly interested in which religious organization ordained what. Would it be possible to make all of these a subclass of something like "religious commune"? Because then I will just create the item if it doesn't already exist yet. Or do we say that an abbey is an abbey (with start and end dates) and a monastery (with start and end dates) and a nunnery (etc) ? Jane023 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The answer above is very clear. Abbey is a subclass of monastery is a subclass of organisation. If the organisation changed its status then record the status at different times with start/end dates. If you are talking about the building then abbey and monastery are both subclass of religious buildings. If you are not sure whether you are talking about a building or an organisation then look at the statements you want to make about the item. Are they statements about the organisation or about the building? if they are about both then rewrite them so they are only about one (Abbey (building) used by Dominican order from start date to end date or alternatively Abbey (organisation) geo coordinates from start date to end date). or split into two items. Follow the statements. they will tell you what you need to do. Filceolaire (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer! I am dealing with old heritage building ensembles that were at some point all of these things (nunnery, farm, monastery, abbey, etc). Do you mean to say that Abbey (building) is the same item as Abbey (organization)? Is it OK to have an item be an instance of building and of organization? Thx. Jane

Machine Synchrone[edit]

Not unrelated to my previous question: the (fr) article Machine synchrone is about both synchronous motor and alternator (same principle applied to different devices. As is, the article is linked to synchronous motor but can't be reached from alternator. Is there a way to improve this situation, since in this case a merge would not be acceptable? Evpok (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Evpok: Wikidata:WikiProject Cross Items Interwikis is looking at ways to solve this problem. Filceolaire (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Munsö, Munsö and Munsö, help wanted![edit]

I have split the B&C-tem Munsö (Q2149064) into Munsö (Q10590356) and Munsö (Q20477542). This was necessary, since some articles were about the (former) island, some about the village and some about both. (svwiki had two articles) The interwiki-conflict is solved (I hope), but I now need some HELP with the labels and descriptions in es, fr, nl and it. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you use three items for 2 concepts ? If you split use the former as item for the island only and the new one for the village or the inverse. Now we have a third item which a mix and can't be classified. Snipre (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: Thanks for the edits! Ask the Wikipedia-editors, why they write articles about two things in one article! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not my problem to know how WP articles are written, but now I have a problem with your splitting choice: this creates an item which is not a village or an island. WD can't follow the structure of WP articles and the creation of a new item was correct to distinguish between village and island. But I would prefer a solution where the former item would be defined as the island even if some WPs used it for a mix of two different concepts. This will be problem of WPs to correct their article or to use arbitrary access to the item of the village. Snipre (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree: two concepts -> two items. Where to put the mixed pages is something of a puzzle, but nothing out of the ordinary. - Brya (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
With Arbitrary Access we have no problems to follow the links in Munsö (Q20477542) to reach the data about the village and the island. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The opposite is more difficult. How are we supposed to know that you should add the infobox-data for the (former) island, in an article about the village or vice versa? And how are we supposed to know that you should do that in the enwiki-article but not in the svwiki-article. If Q219937 can be described as instance of (P31):duo (Q10648343), why cannot the item about the two Munsö? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Munsö (Q20477542): instance of (P31)geographical object (Q618123)? Paweł Ziemian (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: If you can't define which is the correct item, don't do the choice: just let a message in the talk page of the WP article that WP contributors have to deal with two concepts. The problem is the creation of items which mix concepts: at the end people will just continue to use these items and will add statements to this one instead of using the correct items or worst they will add data to both items leading to constraints solving in WD side. To be correct you should now forbid the addition of statement to the mixed items in order to prevent statement addition at the wrong place. Can we do that ? Snipre (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The data-model I am thinking of here is:
If statement PXXX in QYYY then
    use that statement
else
    If there is a P:"has parts" in this item, then
         look for PXXX in those child-items, and if they exists, use them both in the infobox
    end
end
If there for example is a P625 in the first item, you do not have to look into the other two items. You normally do not have two Coord-templates in such case. P625 in all three items maybe look redundant here, but it helps the Lua-code to know that is has found what it has been looking for. We are smart enough to know that Bonnie and Clyde wasn't born twice, and that they are not both female and male. But the infoboxes can most likely not see the difference between that two dates has been added because we are unsure about the exact date or if it's because it's about two different persons. If the statements can be found in two different items, the chance that the infobox understands is much higher.
If the first item do not have a P1082-statement, it will look for such statements in the other two items, and the code is then able to use the P1082-statements for both the island and the village. They are normally not the same for an island and a village, but both are normally present in the infobox. The data for this village is updated every 5 years in this case, but I do not know how often the data for the island is updated.
There are cases when you have a use for two P625 above. If the article is not about a village and an island, but instead about two (or more) neighbour villages, you can have use for more than one P625 and should not add P625 to the B&C-item.
Another problem I see here is the integrity of our database. The bots who will update these items will look for the statement P776:S0457 and add P1082 according to it's own database. It will also change rank from "preferred" to "normal" in the already present statements. The bots may be smart enough to look for such things as applies to part (P518), but I do not trust that they always are that smart. There are so many potential ways to mix different data, that I prefer that we avoid it as often as possible.
On svwiki we have hundreds of articles about two or three villages. nlwiki tends to have articles about them too, but they split them in one article per village.
Yes, Snipre, there is a large risk that random users adds statements that should not be here. But I think the advantages of protecting the integrity of the database is higher. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #164[edit]

Atheism[edit]

The use of religion=atheism has - rightly - been deprecated on en.Wikipedia; yet we have cases of religion (P140)=atheism (Q7066). How can we best avoid this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Replace with lifestyle (P1576), run a bot every month and tell people about it. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It sounds strange to me to describe atheism as a lifestyle and I'm also not sure why we would want to separate it from the religion (P140) property either. To me it seems like it should be religion (P140) = no value (with some sort of qualifier if we want to describe the exact form someone's lack of religion takes). - Nikki (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Atheism is not a religion. (It has been said that "atheism is no more a religion than 'not collecting stamps' is a hobby"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Debatable, but assuming you're correct, I could point out that anarchy is not a mode of government, but I could totally see adding it as one here on Wikidata. --Yair rand (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome to read the debates in en.Wikipedia; I don't intend to rehash them here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: enwikipedia may have any opinion they like. They can (and probably should) set a filter to the templates that import such statements, instead of trying to influence their opinions to other projects. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of "enwikipedia trying to influence their opinions to other projects"; however I do believe that the points made in the discussions I mentioned apply more widely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy, please provide the location of that discussion. Saying "en deprecated this use" is unhelpful without reasons why and since you are electing not to supply any, your request for change is unhelpful. --Izno (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
That's still weird: Who says atheism (Q7066) is a "lifestyle" either? What would an "athiest" lifestyle look like? (Same goes for agnosticism (Q288928).) We should be asking ourselves how these claims are relevant to the items they're being added to; that would probably help decide what property it's about. There doesn't seem to be a property for belief system (Q5390013); maybe religion (P140) should be about belief system (Q5390013) instead of religion (Q9174). Anything of class religion (Q9174) would be a subclass of belief system (Q5390013), right? --Closeapple (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
There is some inconsistency here, yes. We recently had a long discussion (on several places) if the Catholic church was a religion. I do not know if we came to any conclusion in that case. Split this property makes it even worse, I'm afraid. I would say that the lifestyle of an atheist is "materialism". But I am not aware of that we have any item that describes that word it in the way I intend it here. And that statement today have only me as source. Some athiests do not like to be attached to the word religion at all, and there can be doubts if it really is. But can an athiest be "religious" in the same way as we use the word for non-athiests? My opinion is that they can. Ricky Gervais (Q23517) looks to me as a passionate preacher of that religion. He spends a lot of time to tell others that "atheism" is the only true "faith". In that way, he is more religous than many true religous people around me. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Add it as a constraint on P140 also. --Izno (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Izno: How would that be framed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Create a new property philosophy for person ? Snipre (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the present constraints may take care of this. --Izno (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
We should rename religion (P140) to world view (Q49447), allow atheism (Q7066) as value and let enwiki to have any kind of filter they want to. I don't like second property option. -- Vlsergey (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Procedural pings: these users have all edited Property talk:P140 regarding atheism and have not participated above. @Gloumouth1, Danrok, AS, Touriste, Sabbut, Wylve: @Infovarius, Tobias1984, Cbrown1023, Emw, fnielsen:.

My preference would be to redefine the property to be inclusive of atheism, as per P140's talk page. There are several suggestions there for such a renaming. --Izno (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support religion (P140) needs to be redefined. Call it "world view" or "holds belief system". I am not sure if that solves all the cases, but it would help. For example there are atheists that still are members of a church. But in that case member of (P463) seems more appropriate. Then there are also countries where you inherit your parents' religion on your birth certificate. So there was no choice there to join the religion. No idea how we should call that. - In any case this property should be used only if the person himself, or a notable source has spoken about that "belief system". No mass editing based on hunches. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The article world view (Q49447) doesn't say much if anything about religion. Also, religion (P140) = Catholic Church (Q9592) is not the same as world view = Catholic Church (Q9592). For one, Catholic Church (Q9592) is essentially an organisation, which is made up of people, many of whom have conflicting views. In any case religion (P140) = Catholic Church (Q9592) is not so correct either, the religion is Christianity (Q5043). We might claim member of (P463) = Catholic Church (Q9592), but how do we verify that given that many churches do not have a formal membership system? There are baptism records, but all that tells us is that the person was baptised. We can't make assumptions based on that. Danrok (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Danrok: Christianity (Q5043) is not a religion because e if this is a religion what is Catholicism (Q1841) or Protestantism (Q23540) ? And just think about the denomination of French Wars of Religion (Q673175) that subdivisions inside Christianity (Q5043) are more than details. Snipre (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
How about "Life stance"? Lymantria (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
More than a "life stance" it is a "spiritual stance", or as other said a "view". In that frame we could fit emergentism (Q3724133) or physicalism (Q269114) as valid options.--Micru (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Current literal translation of P140's Russian label into English is "attitude(relation) to religion", so there is no problem with mixing atheism and religions. I guess there are few more languages, that already have solved this problem by slightly redefining this property. --Lockal (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with Lockal and Izno pov. If Atheism is not strictly speaking a religion, it is certainly a militant pov about religion, not a lack of religion, it cannot be simply indicated by attribute none.
I think we should redefine religion (P140) to accept atheism and agnosticism, which are positions regarding religion, and not simply philosophical pov. Why not add a definition religion or pov on religion (incl. atheism) ?
world view (Q49447) certainly cannot fit in French... it is a strict definition of the German-term :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support rename religion (P140) to make it more inclusive, in order to avoid endless debates about some "world views" which could be considered as religions by some people and not by others. It is the same reason why discoverer or inventor (P61) was named "disovered by" only at the very beginning, and was generalized after. --Gloumouth1 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Atheism is representable with

< Richard Dawkins (Q44461) (View with Reasonator) > religion search < no value Help >

. I think he can be defined as an activist, so I'd like a political conviction property to say he is active is the political atheism movement for example. TomT0m (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. But stay the problem of agnostism. Religion = some value ? Snipre (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

no, the lack of religion is not atheism, or, more precisely : someone answering to "what is your religion ?" "none" doesn't mean the person would define oneself as atheist
no... Atheism is not "no value", it's "no God"... it's a direct and firm refusal of the existence of God/s which is much different from the mere indifference to religion. - it's as Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose of God, not Symbol wait.svg Wait (which would be Agnosticism) and not Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - which is the "no answer".
moreover, there is a strong problem of definition of atheism, according to who claims it : accusing someone of atheism (generally an insult - see Pascal) is not at all the same as someone claiming to be an atheist. If P140:no value could represent a position, it would probably be agnosticism rather than atheism. :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
We should rely on definition, not on dubious analogies. We know what beeing theist is. Begin an atheist is the opposite of this position, that's all. Wikidata would not really know what to do with connotations, and insulting someone is not really a reliable source, as far as I can tell. What would be a plausible counter argument would be whether or no http://www.cairn.info/zen.php?ID_ARTICLE=DIO_205_0069 buddism is a theism (seems not) and if it is a religion. TomT0m (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Atheism is a direct and firm refusal of the existence of God/s is a definition, as far as I know ;)
Religion is, by definition, a question of beliefs, conviction, and not a question of facts, and truths, even if believers are convinced that they detain Truth.
as such, the conviction that God does not exist is as much a faith that the contrary conviction.
I did not mean to insult anyone, I meant that we can only use atheist/atheism to describe someone only if s/he describes oneself as such… and people who describe themselves as atheists are strongly opposed to the existence of god/s, which is a position much stronger than having "no religion".
The Buddhism argument is right though… is buddhism a religion or a philosophy ? … many people would say it's NOT a religion, many others that it is. Why can't we simply enlarge the definition of religion (P140) to have all thems (atheism/agnosticism/buddhism) as accepted values ?
if religion is a valuable data to store about people, don't mix atheists (who have a determined opinion) with people who just don't care. - It's important that all opinions can be stored, not just considered as "no value". --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see a need for two different properties here - one for "belief system" and another for the "church (organization) that a person is a member of". So a person can be a Baptist with allegiance to the Southern Baptists. Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The right way to do this is to use religion (P140) = no value. However you define atheism, this applies in every case. I´d define atheism as some kind of philosophy. And yes, there are (confessing or non confessing) atheists, who are members of churches or other organisations, some might even have leading positions. So you might have no religion, but be a member of Southern Baptists or Catholic church or whatever. So there must be a separation between personal religiosity and membership to an organisation.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
P140 = no value is not linked data, meaning its utility is much lower than if we correlate to the actual item representing atheism. --Izno (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We should not worry too much about that as linked data evolves, and anyway Wikidata needs mappings to other models. TomT0m (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why can't fictional characters not have family?[edit]

Fictional characters aren't allowed to have a family according to the constraint violations for several properties. A character like Ender Wiggin (Q2846779) is in several reports, because he has a father (P22), mother (P25), brother (P7) and sister (P9). Either those properties should be removed (and we will lose information) or the constraints should be adapted to include fictional characters or we need separate properties of parents and siblings of fictional characters or we keep the current way it is and will unresolvable constraint violations. Mbch331 (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ash Crow:: changed it Special:Diff/205932509 back in March. Maybe he can explain. --- Jura 09:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
When I run into issues like that I usually just change the constraint from class=human (Q5) to classes=human (Q5),fictional character (Q95074). Popcorndude (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Popcorndude: Thanks for the tip. Followed your advice and altered the properties. Mbch331 (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Another option is class=person ( Q215627) which includes humans and fictional characters and sibling duos and biblical characters (there is some dispute if biblical character is a subclass of human or of fictional human but everyone agrees they are a subclass of person). Person doesn't include thoroughbred horses however. I expect that someone will eventually dump the studbooks into wikidata so we will have to sort that. Filceolaire (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No. --- Jura 07:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The bible contains a continuum of characters, from Tiberius (Q1407) who I think nobody claims to be fictional, to characters that in the text itself is described as fictional, like "Wickedness", a women mentioned in Zechariah. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of biblical humans, I was wondering about Abraham and the Story of Abraham. I think we need to separate the human aspects of biblical persons from their biblical stories, because if I am talking about a concept "Abraham takes a knife to kill Isaac and his hand is stayed by the Angel of God", then that is part of the Story of Abraham (as well as being part of Isaac's life). It can be created as a subclass of biblical art as a valid genre, and a subclass of bible stories going up to the Old Testament, but I don't think it is part of Abraham himself, though you might want to crawl up the tree of stories to get to Abraham. Has anyone thought about how to model that? Thanks in advance, Jane023 (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Then the story of Abraham is … a story. It's main character is Abraham, the biblical character. I don't really if scientific history has anything to say about the historical figure of Abraham … TomT0m (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
But at the same time no scientific history can deny the existence of Abraham. A lot of persons don't let a trace of their existence in the history, does it mean that they are fictional ? Snipre (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
What's objective to me is that he's a biblical character, and nobody will deny that. Now for the non biblical part what matters is the other sources. Believers will believe he's real, so the instance of person claim would have to be sourced by the bible. Non believers will deny this claim and require another one. In the case we want to separate the character as it appears in the bible and the one as studied by historians, we will use fictional analog of. Sourced, why not, by the historians. This seems objective. Different pov, different sources. The rest will be an interpretation matter. TomT0m (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

calendar model screwup[edit]

Hi everyone,

I have some bad news. We screwed up. I’m really sorry about this. I’d really appreciate everyone’s help with fixing it.

TLDR: We have a bad mixup of calendar models for the dates in Wikidata and we need to fix them.

What happened?[edit]

Wikidata dates have a calendar model. This can be Julian or Gregorian and the plan is to support more in the future. There are two ways to interpret this calendar model:

  1. the given date is in this calendar model
  2. the given date is Gregorian and this calendar model says if the date should be displayed in Gregorian or Julian in the user interface

Unfortunately both among the developers as well as bot operators there was confusion about which of those is to be used. This lead to inconsistencies in the backend/frontend code as well as different bot authors treating the calendar model differently. In addition the user interface had problematic defaults. We now have a number of dates with a potentially wrong calendar model. The biggest issue started when we moved code from the frontend to the backend in Mid 2014 in order to improve performance. Prior to the move, the user interface used to make the conversion from one model to the other. After the move, the conversion was not done anywhere anymore - but the calendar model was still displayed. We made one part better but in the process broke another part badly :(

What now?[edit]

  • Going forward the date data value will be given in both the normalized proleptic Gregorian calendar as well as in the calendar model explicitly given (which currently supports, as said, proleptic Gregorian and proleptic Julian).
  • The user interface will again indicate which calendar model the date is given in. We will improve documentation around this to make sure there is no confusion from now on.
  • We made a flowchart to help decide what the correct calendar model for a date should be to help with the clean up.
  • We are improving the user interface to make it easier to understand what is going on and by default do the right thing.
  • We are providing a list of dates that need to be checked and potentially fixed.
  • How are we making sure it doesn’t happen again?
  • We are improving documentation around dates and will look for other potential ambiguous concepts we have.

How can we fix it?[edit]

Wikidata calendar model decision tree

We have created a list of all dates that potentially need checking. We can either provide this as a list on some wiki page or run a bot to add “instance of: date needing calendar model check“ or something similar as a qualifier to the respective dates. What do you prefer? The list probably contains dates we can batch-change or approve but we’d need your help with figuring out which those are. We also created a flowchart that should help with making the decision which calendar model to pick for a given date.

Thank you to everyone who helped us investigate and get to the bottom of the issue. Sorry again this has happened and is causing work. I feel miserable about this and if there is anything more we can do to help with the cleanup please do let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So, should the start time for universe (Q1) say "13798 million years BCE Julian" now? What would be the normalized ISO interpretation of this date? --Laboramus (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I would not want us to try to be specific on such things. It will just invite the worst in many people and, it will be wrong given the next theory anyway. GerardM (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Such things happen, datums and conversions between them are always difficult. A big thanks to Lydia and the team for fixing this bug, and for the how-to for our correction of the remaining errors. Jeblad (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
"Before 1583" is dubious, the Gregorian calendar was introduced later in many countries. In theory counting days as MJD could bypass the calendar issues on earth, but I guess that won't fly. For timestamps (PHP, W3C, etc.) I'd interpret yyyy-mm-dd as w:Proleptic Gregorian calendar for anything from 0001-01-01 to 9999-12-31, but that's only me. How about a required qualifier (Gregorian vs. Julian) for all dates before, say, March 1, 1923? –Be..anyone (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So far I see no mention of the need to allow (require?) the editor to enter the before and after fields in the user interface, and no ability to enter the time zone. These abilities are necessary in order to change a day in New York to a day in Greenwich. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Currently dates are stored in Proleptic Gregorian. Why? Because wikidata can not store date "29 February 1900" (it will be replaced by "1 March"). Will it be the same from bot/scripts point of view? I.e. will there be store model/format/interpretation change, or just user interface? -- Vlsergey (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't quite understand diagram "how to fix". Consider situation with ruwiki where dates were presented in articles and infoboxes but no direct reference was provided. It was okay for ruwiki to have data without source, it was okay to copy data to Wikidata, it was okay to remove data from wikipedia article because wikidata have it now and can provided it via LUA / infobox / templates. But according to diagram Wikidata is going to remove data because no source provided. I'm sure local community won't be happy with that. The same situation with replacement to Gregorian without calendar-mentioned-sources for dates after 1583. This will change date representation in articles. Local community will be really furious about this. Why don't we just mark those dates with some flag? For example . -- Vlsergey (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    "it was okay to copy data to Wikidata". This is not correct: WD always requires sources, it was just because some bots were doing some forcing to import data without sources that WD let them working. Here is a good example of what happens when you go ahead without enough reflexion. Local community took some decision but the problem is that we don't have one local community but some local communities and decisions of one local community don't engage the other ones unless it is a common decision. We have to find a solution but a common decision will have the priority. Snipre (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. "WD always requires sources" -- it doesn't look like this is what really happens on Wikidata, you know. I see nothing even close to it. 2. Well, common decision != "wikidata decision" != "wikimedia commons decision". Anyway, I proposed a solution that allow not to break anything in any community (i.e. mark elements without sources and not to delete them). We will need some kind of "source required" flag anyway, why not to create it right now? -- Vlsergey (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    We can't prevent contributors to add data without sources according to wiki concept, especially when they don't take the time to read the basics about WD, but this doesn't imply than WD has to accept these edits. You propose a solution but please don't start your proposition saying "local community won't be happy with that" or "local community will be really furious". Snipre (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    Well, how can I help in situation when people seriously propose "delete claim" without thinking about local communities? Yes, ruwiki won't be happy about deleting claims. Yes, it will be furious if one start to delete information from infoboxes. Any kind of rule that implies deleting information that was accepted in Wikipedia (and was moved to WD as primary storage) will means turning away from using Wikidata as primary storage. Nobody at local wiki will take care of using "source-backed-(wiki)data" in 1% of infoboxes if all other infoboxes will need to preserve all local data, just in case they will be delete from WD. It would be much simpler not to use Wikidata for infoboxes at all. -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm also against deleting useful informations from Wikidata just because it actually has no source. No one is forced to use such informations, it is very simple to filter out dates without sources. --Archer90 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't delete the dates because they don't have no source, but we delete them because we assume they are wrong because we don't have any proof they are correct. Snipre (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"it has no sources" => "it may be wrong" => "delete it". I see no big difference here. -- Vlsergey (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There is one difference: we know that the data import was not done with a strict rule for date conversion, so the problem is the calendar conversion and not the dates themselves. Even if I assume that the dates are correct, I have a problem to keep them in the new storage structure because I have to convert them. Snipre (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Dates import by my bot was done with strict rule for dates conversion -- they are imported according to storage data model, i.e. in proleptic Gregiorian calendar. Of course, I do know several bot owners who did mistake importing Julian dates as Gregorian ones and vice versa. Still this not require any kind of cleanup-by-delete. Any project that want to "merge" with Wikidata will be able to resolve it on per-case basis by comparing it's dates with Wikidata and fixing discrepancies. We don't need to remove anything unless those discrepancies really found. From ruwiki side I can be sure that most of imported dates are correct, at least they are displayed correctly even with conversion. Also, as far as I understood Lydia, there will be no conversion, just UI fixes. -- Vlsergey (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


The flowchart should be modified. Looking at the Julian side of the chart, where the source does not specify a calendar, and the date in the source is the same as the date in Wikidata, we need to ask if the date is related to the Roman Empire, and if the date is before 1 March AD 8. If so, the date must be presumed to be in the actual Julian calendar (as observed by the people of Rome) rather than the proleptic Julian calendar. There is no precise conversion available, so the before should be 1 day and after should be 2 days.

If the situation is otherwise the same, but the date is before 1 January 45 BC, the date must be presumed to be in the Roman calendar, which is not supported, and there is no reliable conversion from the Roman calendar to the proleptic Julian calendar. These dates should probably have the precision changed to year and before = 1 year, after = 1 year. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

In these cases it would be nice if the reference could be given and if a quote (P1683) could be included as a qualifier with the wording of the source so the information is there if we get suitable properties later. Filceolaire (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What about dates with precision less than a year - such as decades, centuries, millions of years? For decades it may make some sense to set Julian when it's before 1582, but for a date with millions of years precision it doesn't really. Should we have some cutoff there? --Laboramus (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Q915373[edit]

Copied from Deletion requests
Never edited here on Wikidata before. The Problem is, there are two interwiki links which doesn`t match. The German and the Dutch articles are describing only successfull summer gold medalists, the other ones summer AND winter athletes. I assume the interwiki links shall be deleted and somebody should create a new item especially for the German and the Dutch articles. --César (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
end of copy

✓ Done, new item just for Summer Olympic Games (Q159821) is now found at List of multiple Summer Olympic gold medalists (Q15360322) (Czech Wiki already had one). - FakirNL (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Refresh main page[edit]

Someone here that wants to refresh the content of the main page (regularly)? It is a bit static now, a new highlighted WikiProject and a new example of a statement will help a lot. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

if the Earth is 6000 years old......[edit]

I came across an online copy of Bishop Ushers Annals Of The World which is the book, published in 1658, that worked out that the world was created on 23 October in 4004BC.

While it is undoubtedly wrong about the date of the big bang it is does give definitive dates for the births and deaths of each of the "begats" from Adam to Jesus. (I didn't say right, I said definitive). I think we should add these dates to all those biblical characters with the dates referenced to this book.

OK? Anyone want to help? Filceolaire (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I had planned to add many of birth and death dates to these items in AM (which is very inconsistently converted to Gregorian) once the time datatype is extended to allow for other calendar systems. Add the calendar issues to the different opinions by different religions and religious sects, and these properties are likely going to have a very large number of values... --Yair rand (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
And some of those statements would tell that the heaven and earth was created in "the beginning" without having a specific date for it. Looks like a challenge to make a datatype that can handle that! :) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata is broken for dates before AD 1, because the data model says the year before AD 1 should be entered as 0000, but the user interface enters it as -0001. I think there should be a moratorium on entering dates before AD 1 until Wikidata is fixed. Jc3s5h (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cycling teams[edit]

Hi, it is again me. Today, I work about cycling teams. My example will be Russian Helicopters (Q15332177) (fr:Équipe cycliste Russian Helicopters in French). I am working on the fr:Module:Infobox/Équipe cycliste who will take datas from Wikidata.

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: Classes are organized hierarchically. I think any professional team, whatever the sport, should be a subclass of the professional sport team class. It's doable doing something similar than {{SuperclassTree}} does, and a test to see if professional sport team in in the tree, with arbitrary access.
My proposition :
This makes the Russian Helicopters 2014 (Q18528960) automatically an instance of professional sport team.
Additionally I would say
< Russian Helicopters (Q15332177) (View with Reasonator) > instance of (P31) miga < Cycling team franchise >
. Instances of Cycling team franchise would then have a sponsor, a brand name (american style naming, I don't know how to name it in french). TomT0m (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The final instance of statement isn't necessary that TomT0m has above. --Izno (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: c'est un peu hard à comprendre, encore plus en anglais, mais je saisis le truc. Je viens de créer professional cycling team (Q20639847) et amateur cycling team (Q20639848), puis professional sport team (Q20639856) et amateur sport team (Q20639857), j'ai ensuite fait le lien avec subclass of (P279). Enfin, j'ai testé avec succès {{SuperclassTree}} sur la page User:Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick/Cyclisme.
professional cycling team (Q20639847) et amateur cycling team (Q20639848) serviront un peu plus tard sur la Wikipédia francophone, lorsque l'arbitrary access aura été activé. Est-il possible de dater ces informations avec start time (P580) et end time (P582) ? Certaines équipes amateur sont devenues professionnelles (c'est toujours un gros bordel vu qu'il y a toujours des cas particuliers). Utiliser has part (P527) pour lister les saisons d'équipes est-il correct (Russian Helicopters (Q15332177) > has part (P527) > Russian Helicopters 2014 (Q18528960)) ?
Est-ce qu'il existe une propriété proche de topic's main category (P910) qui pourrait me permettre de définir la catégorie d'une équipe (Q1756006 (Q1756006), UCI Professional Continental Team (Q382927), ProTeam (Q20638319), WorldTeam (Q6154783)), en jouant avec start time (P580) et end time (P582) comme qualificatifs vu que l'équipe peut changer de niveau, et qui pourrait également permettre de qualifier 2015 UCI Europe Tour (Q18342122) (une course peut être de catégorie 1.1, 1.2, 2.1...). Sinon, bonne nouvelle, j'arrive maintenant à remplir de manière assez complète les informations sur une équipe cycliste, je vais demander la création d'une propriété code UCI pour être complet. Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Vanishing property labels[edit]

This evening, when I open an item page, and I scroll down the page, the Property labels scroll to the right, until complete disappearance, which makes it rather difficult sometimes to guess what property is displayed.

Did someone else have the same problem ? was there some kind of GUI update recently ?

Thanks for your help :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

confit/confiting[edit]

Do these really deserve two separate pages(?)? It seems like the Swedish wikipedia page wp:sv:confitering and wp:en:confit talks about the same thing. 79.136.60.114 21:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not my kind of subject. But there are two fr-articles: fr:Confiserie (technique) and fr:Confit here. So these items cannot be merged, but sitelinks can always be moved. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Verifiability[edit]

Since the stability of our information must be good in order for Wikipedias and other projects to trust our data, can we please ratify this now (if I see enough support here for the version as-is I will initiate an RfC; otherwise let's please work on drafting it)? This is badly needed both to create Wikidata:Living people and be more specific with Wikidata:Notability, both important policies. To this end I think it might also be important if a "citation needed" tag is possible for tagging dubious information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Since we just had a similar discussion on the English Wikipedia, I would like to make a point here. There is information which actually does not need reliable sources. For instance, adding the property "Commons category" can be perfectly sourced as "imported from Commons", though Wikimedia Commons is normally nt a reliable source by our standards. Moreover, it can not be sourced in any other way for the majority of the properties. According to the current proposal, if interpreted literally, this info should be removed. I guess we must be very clear on the point that some information can not (and should not) be sourced in the usual way.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we then need to make a distinction between "meta" information and "real" information where the former is derived from our projects' categorization system (sitelinks, categories, etc.) and the latter is derived from outside sources (such as someone's birthdate).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What's a difference?[edit]

stated as (P1932) and named as (P1810) — what's a difference? -- Sergey kudryavtsev (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)