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 can be made here.
Merging instructions can be found here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2015/09.



query wikidata for some category[edit]

I know I can get an entity as json by querying the wikidata by this url: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityData/Qxxxxxxx.json but can I get more than one entity in one query/url, for example getting all the entities of american actors or french presidents best reagrds, -- – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.50.248.106 (talk • contribs) at 21:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

In good time[edit]

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

Entity, article, item[edit]

(I'm going to be using the WD:Glossary definitions of these terms here, even though they seem to have been a bit mixed up for some people (myself included on occasion) along the way. For clarification: Item means the real-world topic/subject, and entity is the thing on Wikidata. If I've gotten these mixed up right now, my apologies.)

The statements on a Wikidata entity represent claims regarding the item of that entity, not the entity itself. We don't put instance of (P31) Wikidata item (Q16222597) everywhere. Similarly, the statements are not regarding the Wikimedia articles linked to the entity. We don't (normally) put instance of (P31) Wikimedia article page (Q15138389) or its subclasses. There are exceptions to this, such as instances of Wikimedia list article (Q13406463). These pages tend to have unusually formed titles, that don't describe a topic, and instead describe the article page itself. For example, when one navigates to the page "List of sovereign states", the article doesn't go on to tell you all about an interesting list. The title describes the article page itself, not the topic, which is a decent way of telling that something's a bit different with this kind of article. Wikimedia article page (Q15138389), along with Wikimedia project page (Q14204246), Wikimedia main page (Q5296), and others, are subclasses of Wikimedia page outside the main knowledge tree (Q17379835). Wikidata item (Q16222597), strangely, is not, and is instead a subclass of Wikimedia internal stuff (Q17442446).

With that out of the way...

I think we really need to be clearer on the distinction between entities linked to articles about the items and entities linked to articles that are the items. Wikimedia page outside the main knowledge tree (Q17379835) and Wikimedia internal stuff (Q17442446) (which should be merged, imo) should not be subclasses of MediaWiki page (Q15474042) or its numerous superclasses. No subclasses of either of these should also be subclasses of items within the main knowledge tree. Entities that have actual topics should not have any sort of should not be subclasses of these. Some professor whose area of study was history of China (Q82972) was (hopefully) not studying the aspect of history (Q17524420). The notable event known as the Death of Osama bin Laden (Q19085) that occurred on 2 May 2011 was not a certain aspects of a person's life (Q20127274). The Canadian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Q5030746) are not a Overview Article of the Wikipedia (Q20136634). The city of Luanda (Q3897) is definitely not a Wikinews article (Q17633526).

I propose that all statements similar to these be removed, and the following pages be deleted:

--Yair rand (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support this effort. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Glossary
"Item means the real-world topic/subject, and entity is the thing on Wikidata" No, item is a special type of entities (properties are entities). An item is equally the real world concept and the stuff on Wikidata it maps to :) The glossary is not the easiest piece to write sometimes with successive rewrinting nonsenses emerges (next time I read it the (way secondary reification concept got totally out of control, don't know what happened.)author  TomT0m / talk page 08:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, got it. I don't suppose we actually have an unambiguous term specifically for the real-world topic/subject? --Yair rand (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • 'Wikidata Entity' = 'Wikidata item (with Q number)' OR 'wikidata Property (with P number)' OR future Wikidata query (with some other reference)'.
      • A Wikidata item is about a single topic and has statements about that topic. A ststatement has a property and a value. The value can be an item or a wikimedia Commons file or a web URL or a string or monolingual text (with specified language) or a date or a number or a number with specified unit. A statement may have qualifiers and references each with a property and a value.
      • A wikidata item can be an instance or a class. An instance is a single individual and has a statement using the instance of (P31) property to link it to the class it is a member of. A class is a group of instances and has a statement using the subclass of (P279) property (or the parent taxon (P171) property for a biological taxon) linking it to a larger class. Some items are both a class and an instance of a particular type (or class) of class.
      • For Encyclopedias and biographical dictionaries on wikisource the topic that the item is about (or is an instance of (P31)) will be an 'encyclopedic article' or a 'biography'.
      • A wikidata item has sitelinks to pages on wikimedia wikis which are about the same topic. The wikimedia wikis use these sitelinks to add interlanguage links between wikis in diffferent languages. Each wikidata item can have only one sitelink to a wiki. This is so that other wikis have only one language link to that wiki.
      • Because each wikidata item has only one sitelink to each wiki there can be a problem when a wiki has more than one page about a topic - separate wikidata items have to be created for each of these pages. Wiki Category pages, for instance, are on a different wikidata item from the item for the topic of that Category.
      • Some wikimedia wiki pages describe a topic which is internal to wikimedia and not related to a real world topic, such as Template pages, disambiguation pages, Help pages etc. These pages also need language links so they need wikidata items with sitelinks. These items have statements identifying them as "instance of (P31):MediaWiki page ( Q15474042)" or various subclasses of MediaWiki page (Q15474042).
Hope that helps. That Glossary really needs a rewrite. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


"political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger"[edit]

    • It's quite clear to me it describes real world events known together as a political carreer. So I'd just use . It's a part of its life, just left to decide if a biography people is a description of someone's life, anb if we just can use something similar to or
      < political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger (Q3660742) (View with Reasonator) > part of (P361) miga < Arnold Schwarzenegger's life >
       :) author  TomT0m / talk page 08:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      The use of templates in your comments makes them hard to read for me. Your second sentences reads "So I'd just use < partial biography article (Q20127274) (View with Reasonator) > instance of (P31) miga < Political carrer >". Just to clarify: which item would have what statement(s)? --- Jura 08:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Seems pretty straightforward, there is even a manual if you type just
        subject >  Wikidata property  object or value >
         :) it's a simple subject/property/object triple, so the statement is on the subject, of course. author  TomT0m / talk page 09:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok. In that case, I tend to think you might have inverted the two. --- Jura 10:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Indeed. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • political career of Arnold Schwarzenegger (Q3660742) should have instance of (P31) "political career". Seems simple enough. --Yair rand (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • and the currently non-existent "political career" item a statement "subclass of partial biography article"? --- Jura 09:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with anything that is a consistent system. Using items like certain aspects of a person's life (Q20127274) was an easy solution for articles which are otherwise hard to classify. What would you do with First inauguration of Barack Obama (Q25094)? With religious views of Adolf Hitler (Q392636)? With Exile and death of Pedro II of Brazil (Q5420282)? Or with the cited Death of Osama bin Laden (Q19085), which actually is an interwiki conflict, with some articles describing a military operation, some the death of a person? What with Napoleon and the Jews (Q2916488), Abraham Lincoln in the Black Hawk War (Q4669055), Later life of Isaac Newton (Q6495541)? All those are items for Wikipedia articles just describing some arbitrary aspects of some larger topic, and to find a suitable "is a" will be a guesswork every time. --YMS (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
They are all instances of events - or sequences or sets of events, aka. story ? , for sure. A death is an instance of death, an investiture is an instance of investiture ... Put the most precise you can think of. As the classes are hierarchically ordered (an investiture is a political event which is a US political event, ...), querying instances of a general one will return also the more specific ones. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I have some difficulties seeing "Napoleon and the Jews" or "Abraham Lincoln in the Black Hawk War" as events. In fact, I have some difficulties seeing those as real-life entities at all, for me they are just Wikipedia articles. If that's my personal problem, I won't dare to block any progress here. But it seems like may others seem to have similar problems to find the right category to use, as most of the items of these kinds used to be classified as humans basically since the beginning of Wikidata. --YMS (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
It depicts and analyses a class of events in the case of Abraham Lincoln, all the events of the Black Hawk War involving Abraham Lincoln, or in which Abraham Lincoln influences. Otherwise it's an analysis of what he thought or how he acted in the Black Hawk War ... What does "Napoleon and the Jews" certainly describes a set of interaction (direct or indirect, through law voting) with the Jews ? Otherwise it describes a set of decisions Napoleon took on the Jews topic, I don't know. Interesting topic though :) Apart from that, these articles have definitely a defined topic. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hm, this is a rather complicated issue. Maybe "Napoleon and the Jews" is a relationship of some sort? --Yair rand (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Would this do? Instance of career, with qualifiers "of: Arnold Schwarzenegger" and "field of this profession: politics" Popcorndude (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I would go with <instance of:political career> or maybe <instance of:career(applies to part:politics)> and <main subject (P921):Arnold Schwarzenegger ( Q2685)>. I think <field of this profession:politics>is wrong because a "career" is not a profession. I think <main subject (P921):Arnold Schwarzenegger ( Q2685)> is better than <of:Arnold Schwarzenegger ( Q2685)> because it can be an independent statement and not just a qualifier. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd go with "political career" over simple "career" with an extra qualifier, but that's not such an important point. It definitely should not use main subject (P921). The primary point I've been trying to make is that these items should not be treated as works/articles. They don't have languages, publication dates, subjects, authors, etc. The distinction between the topic and the article itself is important. Arnold Schwarzenegger's career in politics did not have a main subject. A biographical article may have a subject, but that is not what the item is about. --Yair rand (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

"History of"[edit]

There are some 2916 item listed as instance of (P31) aspect of history (Q17524420). These are definitely linked to articles about a topic, so they shouldn't be treated as Wikimedia articles themselves. I'm unsure about how they should be treated, though. Is "history of France" a part of "history of Europe"? Maybe a subclass of it? Neither? Is it an instance of "history"? "Time period"? 121 items are listed as subclass of (P279) history of a country or state (Q17544377), and using it would mean that subclass of (P279) couldn't be used for lower-level history articles. 34 items have instance of (P31) history (Q309), and 143 items have subclass of (P279) history (Q309) statements. (Many of the former to actually be museums, strangely.) Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Yair rand: History of france is a part of history of europe. History of france and history of europe are subclasses of history, in general. History of france is a subclass of "history of a country", and maybe "history of a European country" to refine further. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Would history of the United States from 1980 to 1991 (Q2633338) be part of history of the United States (Q131110)? Would 1981 in the United States (Q2812799) be part of that? Or maybe both of those would use subclass? Would history of the Poles in the United States (Q16843880) be part of history of the United States (Q131110)? Also, would any of these have any instance of (P31) statements? --Yair rand (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • aspect of history (Q17524420) has just been relabeled from "Wikimedia history article" to "aspect of history" by User:Michiel1972, with the description changed to "article with an aspect of the history of something". If the item is still to be used, the new label is very much an improvement, but the description still has the problem of treating items as Wikipedia articles. I'm also unclear on where this item fits into the general workings of history items. @Michiel1972: Could you comment on this? --Yair rand (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Best practice?[edit]

Hi, I am curious: what is the best way to include information about a book? As you can see in Wikipedia – The Missing Manual (1. ed) (Q428213), I have added the publication date, main subject, ISBN number, etc. in two different ways: as a property of the main item, and also as a qualifier of the "book" property. Which is the correct way? -Pete F (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe putting properties directly on the item is prefered. Popcorndude (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The second structure can be used for books which won't be used in the future anymore. But as you can forseen if this will be the case better use the first structure with properties. Snipre (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, thank you both for the quick response. Snipre (talkcontribslogs), I don't really understand what you mean by "books which won't be used in the future anymore" though -- used for what? What is an example of such a book? -Pete F (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The second version violates quite a few constraints, and, in my opinion, doesn't make any sort of sense. I recommend never using it or anything similar to it. Qualifiers don't do that kind of thing. --Yair rand (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Pete F Note that there is some discussion as to whether this is an instance of a 'book'. Isn't it a bunch of books i.e. a subclass of 'book' and an instance of user guide ( Q1057179)? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Filceolaire (talkcontribslogs), but I'm not sure I understand. Broughton's book was published (by O'Reilly) on dead trees. It was subsequently given a free license and uploaded to Wikipedia so that it could be kept up to date etc. Is there really any doubt that the main thing referred to is a "book"? -Pete F (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No. The statements on this item describe a "literary work". An "instance of:book" is the copy I have on my bookshelf and would have properties like "owner", "location". Wikipedia does actually have some articles about individual copies of books - the "Lincoln Bible ( Q1816474)" for example. I do agree with you that there are an awful lot of 'literary works' on wikidata with an "instance of:book" statement but (in my opinion) most of these should be "instance of:literary work" or one of the many subclasses of "literary work" such as "user guide". They can be "subclass of:book" as well I suppose - unless they are ebooks. At least that is my opinion. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"book" has multiple meanings (wikt:en:book#Noun), you can say that something is a book (meaning 2) and that a particular copy of it is also a book (meaning 1). Trying to use "literary work" (which I think is broader in meaning anyway) instead is unlikely to stop people from continuing to use the existing "book" item, because it is an instance of a book (meaning 2) and people will naturally try to say that. I think a better option would be to have two "book" items, one for each meaning. - Nikki (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes Nikki (talkcontribslogs), that does seem like the approach that would help other users avoid the mistake I made -- and also learn something about Wikidata's way of organizing things in the process. -Pete F (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: "instance of: book" can be used only when you refer to an existing copy of a book. The element you create is refering to all copies and should be defined as "instance of: edition". Then when several editions exists you can create another level to link the different editions with "instance of: work". This is the FRBR classification.
So the element you created refers to one edition an dnot to one specific copy so I correct the instance of with edition Snipre (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
book (Q571): "medium for a collection of words and/or pictures to represent knowledge, often manifested in bound paper and ink, or in e-books". Some ~57,000 books (not the physical object) are currently listed as instance of (P31) book (Q571). A single edition of a book should be linked using edition(s) (P747)/edition or translation of (P629), and should have instance of (P31) edition (Q3331189). --Yair rand (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, here are the preconisations of Books project : it says that items for works should have book (Q571) as P31 - but I agree with Snipre here : a book (Q571) is a medium therefore an object (or an e-object) : thus it is the level of an edition (Q3331189), not of a literary work (Q7725634), that can have many editions… a medium can have only 1 publisher, 1 date, 1 isbn => it is an edition, not a work…
honestly, I've ceased to work on those, for now, because book (Q571) is not satisfactory for work level. — this does not match FRBR… --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

This is all very helpful -- thank you all for helping me understand the way Wikidata "thinks" about these matters. I see there has been some work on the example I initially brought up: Special:Diff/243715381/245655153 However, if there is only going to be one Wikidata item for Wikipedia: The Missing Manual (even in the short term), wouldn't it be better to make that item about the literary work, and not the edition? It seems that as you have worked to resolve the artifacts of my confusion on that, you have gravitated toward the less useful choice. Or am I missing something? -Pete F (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Relationships between academic and research organizations - just use part of (P361)?[edit]

I'd like to see the relationships between academic and research organizations encoded more systematically in wikidata, but I'm not sure this requires new properties or just applying "part of" (P361) perhaps with qualifiers. Right now this seems very ad hoc. For example, the colleges of the University of Cambridge and University of Oxford have their own special class (for example college of the University of Cambridge) of which each individual college is an instance, and the class is declared to be "part of" University of Cambridge. So there is no direct "part of" relationship between for example Trinity College and University of Cambridge but at least an indirect relationship through the class. For University of California on the other hand, there is at least one campus with a direct "part of" relationship (Davis), but others use "parent company" (P749) - for example University of California, Los Angeles - and that isn't even in a sub-property relationship with "part of" ("parent company" is a sub-property of "owned by" which has no further sub-property relationship defined). Meanwhile UC Berkeley has no relationship defined with University of California at all right now. There is also complexity in relationships with research institutes at universities - for example the Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology has no defined relationship with the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign in wikidata, despite being a research unit of that university. My general inclination on this is to recommend new properties - "academic unit of" and "research unit of" which are sub-properties of "part of", and to recommend to consistently apply them for these sorts of relationships. There are a large number of templates in wikipedia now that include detailed relationships of this sort - for example the Template:University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign campus page for English wikipedia - though they include some even finer subdivisions of the relations. Anyway, the data is there in wikipedia and elsewhere, if we could figure out a way to usefully record it here. If I do any work on these soon I expect I'll stick with "part of" for now, but I would like some advice or suggestions on if there's a better way to do this. Thanks! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: A class should not be a part of an instance, it's the college who should be. A class can be part of another class say
< Ca > part of (P361) miga < Ca >
, meaning that a Ca instance is a part of Cb instance. Otherwise part of (P361) would be ambiguous ... Here the every college should be a part of the university. As far as I remember this was discussed in WD:RfC/Refining part of for example ... but you're right there should be a better help page as Help:BMP is limited. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith, TomT0m: A class can be a 'subclass of' another class but it would be unusual for it to be a 'part of' a bigger class. A 'College' is not a 'research institute' is not a 'university' so a 'college' or a 'research institute' is not a 'subclass of:university'. Each individual oxford college is 'part of:Oxford University' and is an 'instance of:Oxford College'. I think UCB is 'part of:University of California'. For Research institutes I suspect their relationships with the Universities are more varied with only some being owned by the University. There is nothing to stop you having both 'part of:named University' and 'parent company:named University' so it can be found either way. Maybe 'parent company' should be a sub-property of 'part of' as well as 'owned by'. Hope that helps. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
TomT0m Joe Filceolaire so should I go ahead and remove the "part of" claim for college of the University of Cambridge (a class) relative to University of Cambridge (an instance of university) and add "part of" claims for all the individual colleges and other relationships of that sort? Is there some other property that would could still indicate the relationship between the class of Cambridge colleges and the instance as a university? And is this a case where it might be worth looking into recommending new properties for these relationships? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith: Help:Basic_membership_properties says that if every 'instance of:class A' is a 'part of' an 'instance of:class B' then you can say 'class A:part of:class B' but I've never really agreed with that. YMMV. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
By the way, here's the correct link for WD:RfC/Refining part of. I think I need to read a bit. I had read Help:BMP and I think it's pretty good actually. Though perhaps the hypothetical examples should be replaced by real ones to improve clarity. I found the class examples particularly confusing - if something is sometimes part of another class but sometimes not, should it be indicated by "part of"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I've created a modified version of the Help:BMP page here: User:ArthurPSmith/Test/Help:Basic membership properties - comments welcome, I expect to continue working on this next week, it's definitely not final. I also made some notes on the discussion on TomT0m's RfC for that page. One thing that came to me though while looking into this more is a similar case to the <college of the University of Cambridge> (class) - "part of" <University of Cambridge> (non-class) case. The second example along those lines is the relationship between inner planets (a class) and Solar System (an individual object, not a class). There is a "part of" claim there, and it seems entirely appropriate to me. Similarly the asteroid belt, and other classes of solar system objects. I think this is a common case, where you have a collection of entities that form a class X, but if all of those individual entities are also "part of" another individual entity Y, it just makes sense to consider the class X to be "part of" the non-class Y. There definitely are at least these 4 or 5 cases in wikidata now - would it be worth digging up more examples? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Isidro A. T. Savillo (Q18207526)[edit]

I don't know what to say... just have a look. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

+w:Talk:Isidro A. T. Savillo. --- Jura 09:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting use of the "reference" elements: Isidro A. T. Savillo (Q18207526). --- Jura 06:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fusion problems[edit]

Can someone fusion en:Category:People from Kłodzko County (Q13283590) with German de:Kategorie:Person (Glatzer Land) ? MarinaPoltaswa (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done - Mbch331 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Shooting range register[edit]

Hello, I want a functionality (for instance on Wikipedia or an external site) where you can search for the nearest en:shooting range. I had in mind a search function where you can filter by country, counties and so on until you get close enough, with an interactive map showing the alternatives. Therefore I've laid a foundation by collecting information about many shooting ranges in Norway, see no:Skytebaner i Norge or en:Shooting ranges in Norway. The information is now stored in lists in the articles, but is there a way to move the information to Wikidata? And how can the data be used for such a search funtion I had in mind? I have little knowledge of how Wikidata works, but I've heard "arbitrary access" or "query" might be some appropriate tools. Thanks, Sauer202 (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hell no. The notion that Wikidata is abused for firearms aficionados is appalling. Please do not even think about it. Thanks GerardM (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, can you please explain what you mean?Sauer202 (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
The notion that Wikidata would be useful for people who care about guns and firing them is not something I would consider worthwhile. It is the worst proposal I have heard in a long time. GerardM (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry that we disagree, as I don't see the problem of listing sport venues on Wikipedia. Sauer202 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
GerardM, please stop pushing your own opinion here. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
If all the shooting ranges have items and all of those items have coordinate location (P625) and instance of (P31): shooting range (Q521839), then you could query them on AutoList with "claim[31:521839] and around[625,lat,lon,rad]", which should find all ranges within rad km of (lat, lon). Popcorndude (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! So it's just a matter of plotting the correct information into the Query editor? I tried to use it with no luck, but I'll try to read up on the Wikidata FAQ. Will every range listed with coordinates show up, even though there's no article for each range? Sauer202 (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Probably nothing came up because none of the items within the specified radius have enough data. I entered just the "claim[]" part and got 11 items. Popcorndude (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I also get 11 items when I only paste the "claim[]" part. All the hits have their own Wikipedia article, for instance en:Løvenskiold shooting range. Is there a way to include those ranges listed which don't have their own article? Sauer202 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Here are some maps from the Wikipedia lists, most of which doesn't have their own article. How to get them into Wikidata?
Sauer202 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I would consult Wikidata:Notability, just to be safe, then use Special:NewItem to create each of them or possibly QuickStatements to do all of them at once. Popcorndude (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Sauer202: This is something that may be better suited to using the data (already) in OpenStreetMap; not a Wikimedia Foundation project, but often described as "the Wikipedia of Maps". It has nearly 7K items tagged Tag:sport=shooting Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes. What Andy said. If you add thousands of non-notable shooting ranges to wikidata they will almost certainly get deleted. Wikidata is not a place to have items for each individual shooting range but that is exactly in the scope of Open Street Map and they have the tags already in place.. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I will look into OSM. Is there a way to give each range a unique ID that can be used for instance in both articles on Wikipedia and OSM? I was hoping Wikidata maybe could provide such ID's, which then could be connected to associated clubs, opening hours, etc. like found in no:Mal:Infoboks_skytebane. Sauer202 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Only by creating a Wikidata item for each, and tag the item in OSM with the Q number. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Offer to serve as an administrator[edit]

I am offering to serve as an administrator again. Please see Pigsonthewing 2. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Q404[edit]

user:Addshore has created (Q404) as a redirect to mathematics (Q395), which has caused Pywikibot tests to fail. https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T110819 . I thought it was intentional (and cute) that 404 was missing, symbolising w:HTTP 404. Could it be deleted again? John Vandenberg (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess I will leave this up to the community in general! Technically this should be a redirect, it was created to represent one concept, and that concept is now stored at another location. However I'm sure we can let one slide ;) ·addshore· talk to me! 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
But the concept it was originally intended to represent has always been a duplicate. If any duplicate can be restored, how can we assume that any item wont be restored? i.e. if we change this test to use a different deleted item, is it only a matter of time before it is also undeleted? John Vandenberg (talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
You can always make a test item and let a sysop delete it. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@John Vandenberg: if you need an item that does not exist: Q7. Or do you need an item that is deleted? Can look up an item with a very low id if you need one. Multichill (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
That works as a substitute. Thanks, John Vandenberg (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

HTML markup in descriptions[edit]

Just encountered & quot; in couple of English descriptions what may be mistakes of early import. Will be good idea to run bot. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. On which items? Can you identify the edit that added them? ·addshore· talk to me! 06:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Also take a look at phab:T108533. That seems to be a source of urlencoded junk too.
So I expected a lot of items being affected by this, but it's not that much.
MariaDB [wikidatawiki_p]> SELECT COUNT(*) FROM wb_terms WHERE term_text LIKE "%&quot;%" LIMIT 1;
returns 580 results. If this is a bot related problem I would expect way more results or someone already did a clean up run and just missed a couple. Probably best to copy this request over to Wikidata:Bot requests. Multichill (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I had cleaned-up a few en-labels some time ago .. --- Jura 11:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Goslarer Kaiserring (Q1538552)[edit]

This may no be the right place for a request like this, but after searching the help pages, I couldn't find an appropraiate page. I don't have the proper permission to do this myself, so could someone please fix Q1538552. Right now, it says "No label defined", sp it doesn't show up properly in WP-biography boxes. Cheers! Asav (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You should have the rights to add a label. Just added the English label, please verify it's correct. (And if other languages are needed, please provide language and label in that language.) Mbch331 (talk) 09:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't aware that the English label is the one that defines the overall entry. I thought it was a different entity altogether. But now I know better... Asav (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Asav: it's not the neglish label who defines the entity :) it's probably the language the more people can translate from/to though, that's why it is important. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

New gadget: DuplicateReferences.js[edit]

Screenshot of DuplicateReferences on Earth (Q2)

I've created a script to copy and paste references within an item some months ago and after fixing all bugs that occured, I made it available as a gadget. You can enable DuplicateReferences in your preferences. The source code can be found here.

A link will be placed next to every reference which allows you to copy that reference and insert it to another statement. This is very useful if one imports several statements from the same source and some users have been complaining about the waste of typing the same reference again and again. I hope this gadget helps you all adding more and more references to our statements.

Issues and feature requests can be made on the talk page of the gadget or even better, directly on phabricator on our lovely Wikidata-Gadgets project.

Best regards -- Bene* talk 09:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thx for this very useful tool. Is it possible to add a reference to the toolbar or to wikidata useful? Pyb (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey Pyb, can you explain your idea a bit further? Do you want the gadget to remember a reference across items? -- Bene* talk 18:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I often use the same reference on a lot of items. Right now we couldn't quickly add a reference from Wikidata Useful or from the toolbar. It would be great if we could customize our javascript with our favorite references. A gadget to remember a reference across items would also be a good idea. Pyb (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

problems with Lee and LEE[edit]

please look at Lee (Q218125) and LEE (Q6457631). i noticed that at the moment it is (partly) impossible to add/change labels/descriptions of items which differ only in lower/upper case spelling. This was possible in the past.

for example please try out at Lee (Q218125) to change en-description "Wikipedia disambiguation page" to "Wikimedia disambiguation page". Then an error note appears telling that LEE (Q6457631) already has the same description (even if its label is spelled differently).

does someone know more about this, or can help? Holger1959 (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a feature of the software that no two items can have the same Label and Description in one language. "Wikimedia disambiguation page (but see 'LEE' also)" and "Wikimedia disambiguation page (but see also 'Lee')" should work. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Just curious if such "feature" could be disabled. It much simple to enter nothing into description at all than duplicating description. -- Vlsergey (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: thank you for reply! do you know who decided this and where the change was announced?
Problem: we have thousands (!) of different items like Abcd and ABCD, mainly because enwiki (but also some other Wikipedias) has different pages in many such cases (often disambiguations, but there are also "CamelCase" items vs. not "Camelcase" items, etc).
I mean, it would be easy for me to add "(but see also …)" to the English label, and "(aber siehe auch …)" to the German label, but what should i add for all the other possible languages if every label in every language must differ? this really looks like a bad change to me. Holger1959 (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Holger: The developers put this feature into the code but you will have to ask Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) where (or if) that was announced (she leads the developers team). The problem mainly relates to Disambiguation pages - other types of page are unlikely to have the same description for both pages. If Lydia doesn't get back to you here you can ask on Wikidata:Contact_the_development_team or you can also register a bug/feature request on [1]. Hope that helps. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): can you say something about this issue? to see the "API Error" problem, please try eg. changing the Dutch/nl description of Lee (Q218125) to the standard string "Wikimedia-doorverwijspagina", or try changing the English/en description to "Wikimedia disambiguation page". Another example could be the 2 items for UOC (UOC (Q6478014)) und UoC (UoC (Q7897866)).

For editing such items after the software change, we have to either change their labels in all languages (eg. for English from "LEE" to "LEE (all capitals)", or for German to "LEE (in Großbuchstaben)", etc), or we have to change their descriptions in all languages (see Filceolaire's suggestion above). For both options i don't know what to add eg. in Spanish, or in many other languages i don't speak. For the "change labels option", this would also break the rule that labels generally should only contain the term itself (no additional strings). For the "change descriptions option", this would break the rule for disambiguations, that they should be uniform (all the same, not differing, at least in Latin Script languages), and this would also break the standardized set of disambiguation descriptions used by many bots, tools and users. Holger1959 (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The label plus the description should be unique and identify an entity clearly. Difference only in case is not enough. We should give more information imho. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for notation[edit]

There have been a number of proposals for how to show statements in discussions and I think I have tried most of them. The one I like best is:

  • <property:value> (property:value) {property:value}
Where <property:value> is a property value pair applied to the item; (property:value) is a qualifier; {property:value} is a reference. All are on the same line to signify which <property:value> the qualifier and reference apply to.
Where an item has a property with two values then have <property:value> twice on different lines, each with it's own qualifiers and references.
This is what I will be using from now on - unless anybody else has a better idea?
Anyone want to make three templates for these? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, we already have {{St}} (simple: no qualifiers and references) and {{C}} (more complex: qualifiers, but still no references). I haven’t yet found the need to embed a statement with references. —Galaktos (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata is like[edit]

Wikidata is like Father of Wikimedia family.--Sonia Sevilla (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Given his birthdate, I would rather say the whizz kid. _Zolo (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

First version for units is ready for testing![edit]

Hi everyone :)

We've finally done all the groundwork for unit support. I'd love for you to give the first version a try on the test system here: http://wikidata.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Q23950

There are a few known issues still but since this is one of the things holding back Wikidata I made the call to release now and work on these remaining things after that. What I know is still missing:

If you find any bugs or if you are missing other absolutely critical things please let me know here or file a ticket on phabricator.wikimedia.org. If everything goes well we can get this on Wikidata next Wednesday.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yay! Looking forward to playing with this :) —Galaktos (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The link in the unit selection menu goes to /entity/Q1234 instead of /wiki/Q1234; is that a bug or just a configuration problem of the beta instance? —Galaktos (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That's intended as that is the URI of the concept and that is semantically correct there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Really? ’Cause following the link gives me a 404 error :D —Galaktos (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Ohhhh ok. Yeah that redirecting is probably not set up for beta. It works on Wikidata itself. Thanks for checking! --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see, over here /entity links work. Thanks! —Galaktos (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Does not recognize aliases for units. "Meter" must be spelled in the American style; "metre" doesn't work.
  • No ability to enter an exact quantity. To enter an exact quantity one must enter, for example, 299792458±0, which the average user is unlikely to guess.
  • Yes that's the same way as it has been with quantities before. We need to work on that as well but it is unrelated to unit support. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there a list of allowed units somewhere? Or can any entity on wikidata be a unit? Should there maybe be a class ("unit" - standard of measurement) with units instances of that or of subclasses? Also, will the rollout include creating all the properties listed on Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/2? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes any item on Wikidata can be used as a unit. There should later probably be constraints checks to find items that use items that likely should not be a unit. Once the code is rolled out the people with property creator rights can create the properties that have been waiting for unit support. That is however not a thing the dev team will do. I don't expect it to take long for that to get done. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
ok, I guess that's fine. I didn't find it before but we do have unit of measurement that every unit should be an instance of (directly or indirectly) so doing the constraint check should be relatively straightforward. Probably needs some experience in use though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


If units have to be entities, it would sometimes be necessary to create an entity just to support a particular quantity, such as the gravitational constant 6·67428 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². Giving that unit a label and finding it may be a challenge. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
can you think of a good alternative? Allowing the unit to be a combination of entities in some way perhaps? That seems overly complicated for most situations though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
aliases : there is aliases to help the search :) the gravitational constant unit can very well be aliased (or even labeled) "gravitational constant unit". author  TomT0m / talk page 20:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The unit(s) (m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²) is not the value of the constant (6·67428 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²). How do you, on the page of the gravitational constant, describe its value? --Izno (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
dimensional analysis 
@Izno: its a different question, retrieving easily an item and describing it. Any item can be a unit. Considering this specific unit is expressed wrt. other more elemental unit, we have to find a way to express (m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²) in Wikidata. We already have items for "m", "kg" and "s", we could create item for m³, kg⁻¹, and s⁻² which mean we will have to introduce a property to express the power of units. We have to introduce a (n-ary) property to express multiplication of units, something like
< m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻² > multiplication of units search <  >
together with search < kg⁻¹ >
s⁻² search < {{{7}}} >
. For the power items, we would have
<  > unit power of search < m >
power value search < life (Q3) (View with Reasonator) >
. For example. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I would expect clicking "X" on the unit box to remove the unit. (That is, change it from "1 meter" to "1".) Instead, it only hides the box. --Yair rand (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hmm yeah that is a tricky one with this user interface. I actually forgot to add this to the list of known issues. It'll have to be split into two proper input fields instead of this overlay. This is just the quickest we could technically do. Once we have two proper input fields the issue you are having should be solved. We have phabricator:T109459 for that. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Impossible to enter °F and °C by their aliases. When I use the Q number instead, the label shown is incomprehensible ("GUbpRaNn" and "zCBkZFkr"). --Casper Tinan (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I just tried it on the test system and it worked fine. I had to create the item for °C first though. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Excelent. Thanks a lot. It might be possible to limit the suggested unit values to (1) often used units or (2) subject of the property (P1629) and from here measured by (P1880, reverse of measured physical quantity P111). Poul G (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): So, Wednesday's come and gone, and units wasn't deployed. Did something go wrong? Is there a new schedule? --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I realize now that my wording was ambiguous. I meant Wednesday September 9th. Sorry for the confusion. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

mobile improvements going live soon[edit]

Hey folks :)

As part of his internship with us Bene has been working on making Wikidata more usable on mobile devices. We'll be redirecting users on mobile devices there soon just like it is done on Wikipedia. You can go and have a look at it here: http://m.wikidata.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Q15905

Tracking bug: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T78430

Remaining issues:

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The style changes are now live here. Redirecting people on mobile devices isn't happening yet. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #173[edit]

CEO[edit]

Hoi, CEO only makes sense in relation to an organisation a person is CEO of. My question is, how do I add this on a person? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Use chief executive officer (P169) on the item that the person is CEO of. --Yair rand (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Item position held (P39) chief executive officer (Q484876). While you're at it, possibly also occupation (P106) businessperson (Q43845). --Izno (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The current practice has ONLY CEO on people. CEO is by its very name related to a company. Businessman is not. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Use <position held (P39) chief executive officer (Q484876)> with qualifier (of (P642):'company item'). P642 is widely used as a qualifier to P39. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire, Izno, GerardM, Yair rand: Eh guys, please add this usecase to Wikidata:WikiProject Reasoning. It seems especially suitable to handle these representation mismatch of the same things.
Use <employer (P108): 'company item'> with qualifier <position held (P39): chief executive officer (Q484876)>. @Filceolaire: of (P642) can be widely used, but it would be better to keep it as a last option, specially if other (much more precise) alternatives are available. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 09:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
+1. Yeah that is better. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
P39 is meant to be a first class statement given that it has required qualifiers (though I appreciate the use). --Izno (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Editing Wikidata:Glossary[edit]

I'm ready to start rewriting Wikidata:Glossary as my comment on the talk page but the translation tags are messing editing up. I am going to copy it to User:Filceolaire/Draft:Glossary, strip out all the translation tags, rearrange and rewrite then copy it back over Wikidata:Glossary and call for retranslation and tagging - unless anyone has a better idea? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Well ready for review. I have completely rewritten the Glossary at User:Filceolaire/Draft:Glossary and kept less than 10% of the old definitions. Anyone who wants to comment please do before I overwrite the existing. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure. But don't think for a second that it is remotely ok to paste all of that into Wikidata:Glossary without the translation tags.--Snaevar (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Snaevar for adding tags. I've incorporated all the comments and this has added a few sections since then I'm afraid and I am not familiar with Translation tags to fix it. I would like to get it finished so I can overwrite the existing page. Can you help or suggest where I can find out how to fix this myself? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/Mandatory constraints/Violations[edit]

Could some people help with cleaning up Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/Mandatory constraints/Violations? The page has been around 60k bytes for quite some time now. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP[edit]

I don't like that we don't have a policy about biographies of living persons here. See for example Della Rose Joel (Q20888791). Describing very young childeren of people who are still alive... I don't think that is a good idea. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We already have Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (Q18002970), so why not. But statements should be sourced.--GZWDer (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Practically it is "Kian" who can do the best job by harvesting information continuously from Wikipedias. It is a matter of training the statements that are of a particular concern. As it is, many items for people are insufficient. BLP is quality and it is imho best when we concentrate on specific attributes one at a time and improve quality in this way.
Consequently as we get better in BLP related information, we will be able to signal BLP issues to Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
There is more than one aspect to BLP but the most fundamental aspects is that we avoid libelling (or is it slandering) living persons because they can sue. We don't want <instance of:war criminal> or <occupation:thief> or similar added to an item about a living person without solid references to an actual conviction in court. I guess this is what we should be training bots to look out for.
As well as statements there is also the possibility of libel in Descriptions; especially as we have hundreds of different Descriptions in different languages. This will, I think, be much harder for bots to detect - another argument for automatically generating Descriptions from statements instead. Joe Filceolaire (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
As it is there is no way for us to have something functional without tools like Kian. Quality is quality and BLP is nothing different. When a Wikipedia makes a BLP booboo, we will capture those booboos in Wikidata. Having solid tools like Kian, we can be the best because we capture changes in Wikipedias as well. The notion that Wikidata will have sources for everything that may be problematic in BLP is not really realistic. What we need is being responsive to quality issues notified to us by tools. That will for a long time be the best we can do. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Flow[edit]

Please see the announcement at Wikidata talk:Flow#Priorities for the Collaboration (Flow) team. --- Jura 11:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is extremely disappointing and a slap in the face of everyone who invested time in getting this enabled. The code is just going to rot, we should stop all conversions immediately and revert all pages that already have been changed. Deploying an unfinished product for which the support will crumble over the next couple of months will just be a source of more WMF frustration. And this is coming from someone who was starting to like it. Multichill (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for vandalism fighters in Wikidata[edit]

Hello, As you may know I'm building AI tools to fight vandalism and triage edits for human review. I want to know what kind of vandalism is common in Wikidata, what kind of items are common targets and things like that. Specially some examples can help me a lot. Your input is valuable to me, and if you don't want to share your ideas publicly (in case you might be thinking that vandals will see) please feel free to send me an email (ladsgroup at gmail). There is a paper published in this case and we can discuss about that too :) Best Amir (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You can start with looking into the abuse filters (Special:Tags could also be relevant). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Do you have any code up to look at so far? :) / where would it be? :) ·addshore· talk to me! 16:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Pasleim's PLbot collects possible vandalism at User:Pasleim/Vandalism, Ivan A. Krestnin's KrBot collects removed sitelinks at User:KrBot/Lost links, Emaus' LinkRecoveryBot used to revert these removals but sometimes had false positives. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into them and I probably ask some questions here. @Addshore: the source code is here it's based on revision scoring (m:ORES), the most important part is building features for the AI system and then it will train and builds the classifier. If you need help in running the code, tell :) Thanks Amir (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

See analysis and studies summarized at Help_talk:Description#Vandalism_problem. --Atlasowa (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[edit]

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal: https://policy.wikimedia.org/

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.

Thanks,

Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Special:MassMessage)

Why are links to wiki items displayed in a foreign script?[edit]

I'm finding that on pages such as: Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/Mandatory constraints/Violations, some entries are displayed in a script I don't recognise, possibly Cyrillic. For example: Charles Baudelaire (Q501) is displayed as Шарль Бодлер (Q501), but if I go onto the item, Charles Baudelaire is displayed at the top, as that is the label in English. Is there a way to stop this? I have the language set to English in my settings, but is there some setting I'm missing? Silverfish (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Add babel boxes to your user page. See my page for example. Languages are based on your current location without them. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I've added a babel box, and now nothing displays the name, just the Q identifier. And after a little while I've gone back to the same page, and it's the same as before. Note it's only on pages like that that this happens, on the Autolist 2 tool it just displays the English label, for example, and that seems to the usual way things work. And on that page only some of the items have that sort of link with the text in Cyrillic, some have the text in English, and some just the Q identifier (those within an English label, I assume). Silverfish (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be a very strange issue. On special pages we automatically add the label when an item is linked but in Wikitext that shouldn't happen. Apparently, something like that happens nevertheless. After purging the page, the labels are gone. You see the labels in Russian because the HTML gets cached after saving in the language the last editor of the page has set in their preferences. -- Bene* talk 11:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Check which namespaces/pages are actually cached. Jeblad (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Redundancy?[edit]

Is (Q1627243) and honorary degree (Q209896) the same? If yes: please merge into one object. --2A02:810D:27C0:5CC:5C05:B3B8:B224:E4D5 16:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done by Vlsergey (talkcontribslogs) apparently. —Galaktos (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Announcing the first StrepHit dataset for the primary sources tool[edit]

Hi everyone,


As Wikidatans, we all know how much data quality matters.
We all know what high quality stands for: statements need to be validated via references to external, non-wiki, sources.

That's why the primary sources tool is being developed.
And that's why I am preparing the StrepHit IEG proposal.

StrepHit (pronounced "strep hit", means "Statement? repherence it!") is a Natural Language Processing pipeline that understands human language, extracts structured data from raw text and produces Wikidata statements with reference URLs.

As a demonstration to support the IEG proposal, you can find the FBK-strephit-soccer dataset uploaded to the primary sources tool backend. It's a small dataset serving the soccer domain use case.
Please follow the instructions on the project page to activate it and start playing with the data.

What is the biggest difference that sets StrepHit datasets apart from the currently uploaded ones?
At least one reference URL is always guaranteed for each statement.
This means that if StrepHit finds some new statement that was not there in Wikidata before, it will always propose its external references.
We do not want to manually reject all the new statements with no reference, right?

If you like the idea, please endorse the StrepHit IEG proposal!


Cheers,

--Hjfocs (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


The danger of blanket statements is that they are often easy to refute. No. Quality is not determined by sources. Sources do lie.
When you want quality, you seek sources where they matter most. It is not by going for "all" of them, it is where Wikidata differs from other sources.
Arguably and I do make that argument. Wikidata is so much underdeveloped in the statement department that having more data with a reasonable expectation of quality will trump quality for a much smaller dataset.
I do not understand at all why your tool must feed into the primary sources tool. Imho it is anathema to the instant gratification that is posting in Wikidata itself.
"Rejecting new statements with no reference"? That is plain insane. It is just another argument why I hate the presentation of your idea.
Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Mens College Basketball a 'sport'?[edit]

I was editing Labette Cardinals ( Q17015538 ) - a bunch of sports teams attached to a college in Kansas - and I came across this problem:

We have sport (P641) to indicate what sport a team or individual plays but most competitions are restricted in other ways. You don't compete in tennis or even in tennis doubles ( Q18123885) - you compete in Womens professional tennis doubles. What properties should we use to indicate these restrictions? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: It's a sports league (Q623109) (league (P118). I always wondered if a sport was actually assimilated with the rules you follow on a match for example, which would mean basketball = basketball match for example. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes TomT0m, Labette Cardinals ( Q17015538 ) is in the Kansas Jayhawk Community College Conference ( Q16998117) league but they compete in 6 different sports, some men only, some women only, some both sexes. I think the 'Spirit squad' may even be mixed., I accept that we should create a separate item for each thing the Olympics give medals for but do we need to do the same for Kansas Jayhawk Community College Conference ( Q16998117) or can we use qualifiers?
How do we say
  • if it is men/women/mixed;
  • if it is amateur or professional;
  • if it is local, regional, national or international;
  • if it is under 12s, under 18s, under 21s, veterans;
  • if it is one of those categories the paralympics have;
  • if it is 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m?
Is there an existing property/qualifier we could use? Do we need a new property? Do we need a new property for each of these? Joe Filceolaire (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)