Shortcuts: WD:PC, WD:CHAT, WD:?

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
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 2019/01.

Project
chat

Lexicographical
data

Administrators'
noticeboard

Development
team

Translators'
noticeboard

Request
a query

Requests
for deletions

Requests
for comment

Bot
requests

Requests
for permissions

Property
proposal

Properties
for deletion

Partnerships
and imports

Interwiki
conflicts

Bureaucrats'
noticeboard

Contents

single-value constraint, non-mandatory, references, state it, module... all over again...[edit]

Previous discussions:

title (P1476) has single value constraint (Q19474404). title (P1476) can be use as a property to add a statement or as a refeferce property (to indicate sources). It the property is said that "Non mandatory constraint. Add only title of work in its original language. Multilingual works may have several."

According to

Something is wrong, because there are not all the items that are using P1476 as a refeferce property (to indicate sources). I know there are least 778.

I am not good in SPARQL to find all the violations. @Jura1: tells me that There are 20 million uses of this property. Do we know many may have several titles. I can't find that...

The constraint was added to P1476 some months ago (March). I thought it was wrong. I removed it (Arpil). The constraint was added again at 11 November.[[3]]. Then, a new change happened: Displaying the reference unfolded when there is a constraint violation.

Before that period, I have added many statements with multilanguage references (english and greek). Now, my contributions are difficult. I need more time to add statements, to move to a statement in item page, the references are not unfolded from the time you open an item page but are need some seconds and the page move down and you are not to the point you were etc. Ok, I understand that the change was happen to help users, but that make problem to other users. Even If I am the only one with the problem, I am still a user that also need the help of the communtity.

I have tried to change the way the reference are added [4] @Pasleim:. Of course, I need help with bot and other issues. But, other issues come out. I have tried so hard to use wikidata statements to wikipedia articles. And is was working perfect (with the help of @Matěj Suchánek:). Now, I will need help to change the codes and other thinkg because of all that situation.

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): create a ticket asking to keep references with non-mandatory constraints folded [5]. I am waiting for that (I don't understand how exaclty will work, if that happen, but it may help).

I am thinking just to add the "statements" to wikipedia infoboxes with the reference and not to wikidata anymore. It easier now for me, than wikidata. It is useless if we change so many things in Wikidata that affect wikipedia. And then change the templates and modules in wikipedia and etc... Yesterday, I needed douple ot time to add all the statements I wanted to wikidata, because of the problem. So tired situtation...

I am asking two things to the community:

1) Please think again the single-value constraint with title property. There are so many multilanguages items. Especially with two language, one of them are English. Or,

2) Please, remove the constraint untill we have an answer to the ticket.

Sorry for my Enlgish. Xaris333 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Both title (P1476)-statements could be added to Cyprus census 1976 (Q29639032) and not repeated in every reference using that source. This would solve most of the problem. If there is an item for the source, I don't see why there would be P1476 in the reference. --- Jura 21:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason we should not use separator (P4155) = "language" to allow multiple values for "title" when the language is different? I wasn't aware of this qualifier until last week, but I think it would solve the issue here. - PKM (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


  • For the first point: that create more problems, for example in Wikipedia module. In Greek Wikipedia we need help from the user I told above to fetch the reference from wikidata. Now, we have to change it again because of that situation. And, you can understant in some communities there is not always some who has the knowledge and/or wanted to help. For me, that changes is like that all the days we spent to make the modules work, was waste of time. All over again from the beggining. I know that does not care wikidata community and of course wikidata is not just a user and the problem he has while constibur... If that is the answer (what you suggest), then it is just better for me to just add the statements and references to Wikipedia. It is so tired always to change things in Wikidata that affects all the others. I just need a final discussion (this one) to know what to do. Noone will continue to contibute if changes make problems to his contributions... Moreover, the constraint also exist in Cyprus census 1976 (Q29639032). Why is a problem that an item has two titles?
  • How to use separator (P4155)?
  • And why title has single-value constraint and language of work or name (P407) not? If a work has more than one language, it may has more than one title. Xaris333 (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Xaris333 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

    • If the LUA module isn't following Help:Sources maybe it's worth revising it. I haven't said it's a problem to add 2 titles, I even suggested moving them to the correct item. There you wont have the "unfolded references" issue. --- Jura 10:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


@Jura1:

1) I am adding a lot of references last 3 years. Noone ever tell me and noone ever correct any of those references. Is that wikidata? Anyone can add references some years, create modules to fetch that reference to Wikipedia, and one day someone tell him that are "wrong" and have to change everything? Actually is not wrong, is the url approach. In Help:Sources said: "Typically the property used for sources is one of two options: stated in (P248) (referring to publications and media) and URL reference URL (P854) (used for websites and online databases). I was adding the reference with the second options: they are url and online databases. That they are. And now you are telling me that this is wrong. Can you explain me why this url must go with the first option and not with the second? It is a data set (Q1172284).

2) "I haven't said it's a problem to add 2 titles, I even suggested moving them to the correct item. There you wont have the "unfolded references" issue." See Classification for the degree of urbanisation in Cyprus (Q60197762). You are telling me to create items for references that they will aslo have the single-value constraint!

3) If it is not a problem to add 2 titles, then why we have single-value constraint for title?

Xaris333 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • It's just a potential issue. If you try to add three title statements to Q29639032, it would be an actual issue. If you just add one, it's never an issue and for most works this the way it should be. If you have a suggestion for a better solution for these, I'd be interested. --- Jura 17:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I have: remove the constraint. It is wrong, it is proplematic, it is not useful. Xaris333 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jura1: Why you avoid answering my first question. Can you explain me why this url must go with the first option and not with the second? It is a data set (Q1172284). Xaris333 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm just addressing the question about the single value constraint. I'm sure you will find someone who is interested other issues you may have with Help:Sources, GUI etc. --- Jura 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: your supporting a constraint that affect sources, you suggest a soloution base to Help:Sources but you don't want to answer a question related to constraint and to your suggested solution!! Xaris333 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I think I provided a solution for the only sample you kept repeating in the two previous discussions. --- Jura 18:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Jura1: I gave another example for the same item, but you are avoiding to answer. Moreove, you are avoiding to answer why title has single-value constraint and language of work or name (P407) not? Xaris333 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Xaris333, Jura1: An alternative to the single-value constraint could be to add a complex constraint that allows at most as many title (P1476) statements as language of work or name (P407) statements. --Pasleim (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
      • That is the most logican and helpful suggestion. Thanks Pasleim. I hope that Jura1 and other users will support that. Xaris333 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Somehow I doubt that will work out, but if you will maintain it .. sounds great! --- Jura 18:40, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Pasleim: can you do that? Xaris333 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Symbol support vote.svg Support this solution, though I don’t know how to build the constraint. - PKM (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
          • There are actually three steps involved: (1) write the query, (2) ensure it scales to the number of uses of the property, (3) review and fix statements on the output of the complex constraint (in place of editors currently using the gadget). --- Jura 13:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Does adding the qualifier separator (P4155) actually create the complex constraint? - PKM (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
            • And how does one add separator (P4155) with value “language”, since the language used for strings isn’t (obviously) one of the language properties? (Is there a secret p-value for “language of string”?) - - PKM (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Pasleim, Jura1, Xaris333:, I realized that the proposed solution (complex constraint tying number of titles to number of "language of work") will not solve the constraint for paintings like Mona Lisa (Q12418) which have different titles in different languages.

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE), Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE):, is it even possible to use separator (P4155) with value “language”, since the language used for strings isn’t one of the available language "properties" in the user interface? - PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I can't provide an answer right now but I'll come back to it next week. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Currently, it is not possible to define the language of monolingual strings as a “separator” for a single value constraint. Another option would be to set up a new constraint type, “single value per language”, rather than a variant of “single value”. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) – work account, mainly for development discussions
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
MisterSynergy
John Samuel
Sannita
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Pasleim
Jura
PKM
ChristianKl
Sjoerddebruin
Salgo60
Fralambert
Manu1400
Was a bee
Malore
Ivanhercaz
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Pizza1016
Ogoorcs
CennoxX
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): - Thanks, Léa. Would we need a Phabricator ticket to create this type of constraint?

How do members of the Property Constraints project feel about a new constraint type, “single value per language”, for titles and similar? - PKM (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A “single value per language” could be a good solution for the species vernacular name, title, officil name or other. --Fralambert (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@PKM: Yes, can you create it? :) I just created a tracking task that you can add as a parent task. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Done, task T213967 created. - PKM (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

CiteTool (autofill for references)[edit]

For some time, I've been using User:Aude/CiteTool.js when adding citations; it adds an "autofill" command which populates parameters using Citoid.

It recently stopped working I have no "autofill" option (consistently, not just intermittently). On looking for help, I found that an improved version was available, at User:MichaelSchoenitzer/CiteTool.js. I switched to that but it too is not working.

Is anyone else having issues? Is there a fix? @Aude, MichaelSchoenitzer: for info. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that stopped working for me as well. Jc86035 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused because I can't imagine how a program could do a proper job of citing a source for a statement in Wikidata. This is because it isn't a simple matter of adding a number of adding a reference with a number of qualifiers to the statement. One has to check if the source already has an item, and use it; otherwise add the source as a new item. Similarly for authors. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: The script does/did not have that capability, and right now news articles with items are still rare enough that it's not necessary to check, I would think. Presumably it would be possible to fix this after the fact (if news articles are ever imported) by matching URLs in references to items. Jc86035 (talk) 06:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jc86035: your post at 06:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC) is the first mention of news articles. I would think many items that need citations would/should be supported by a citation to something other than a news article. Also, it wouldn't be normal to add an item for a particular news article, but it is typical to have items for news publictions and programs, such as The New York Times (Q9684), Meet the Press (Q1543066), or The Times (Q50008). If an appropriate item for the pubication or program exits, it would only be necessary to add qualifiers to the statement being supported giving the date, article title, episode information, etc. If authors are identified, items should searched for and, if necessary created. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Jc86035: I have a fork at User:Mvolz_(WMF)/CiteTool.js that works. Just FYI it's very slow, because it's looking up items. If you get impatient you can press 'esc' and just save what's produced thus far. It has a lot more properties than the older version but it's also very greedy, so you may need to remove some snaks before publishing. Mvolz (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm still curious as to why (and when) the original tool stopped working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett, Aude, Jc3s5h: Sorry for the delayed answer! The original script stoped working in autum, when the security settings for userscripts and gadgets where changed. JSON-files can now not be loaded anymore wiht contenttype javascript. All users of audes version should be pinged to swich to Mvolzs or mine version. Alternatively Aude or any itnerface admin could fix Audes version.
User:Mvolz (WMF) and me both did forks of the original script in which we not only fixed this and a few bugs in the original code but also added lots of features! Sadly we didn't knew of each others work and therefore developed to versions independently. We added several features independently to both versions and both of us added features that the other version doesn't have. There's no easy way to get back to one tool with all the features. We'd have to put in a lot of effort for that. Since I'm dooing this in my free time I currently have not enough time for that. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: new ping due to mixup of username. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@MichaelSchoenitzer: Thank you, but as I said above, your version is also not working for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Femicide as a manner of death[edit]

How can I register a woman's manner of death as a femicide if this property manner of death (P1196) is restricted and the closest one to choose is homicide (Q149086) and this isn't reflecting the hate crime against women? --Pablísima (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

  • You could qualify the killed by (P157) statement with has quality (P1552) ?--- Jura 22:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    • What happens is that in many cases we don't have the murderer's name. --Pablísima (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Why not femicide (Q1342425) as manner of death? ChristianKl❫ 10:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Do we have a reference for that? --- Jura 10:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what kind of reference you would want. femicide (Q1342425) instance of (P31) manner of death (Q2438541). What more would you want? ChristianKl❫ 10:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
      • "reference" is what goes in the corresponding section of a statement. Currently Q1342425 just has "0 references". --- Jura 10:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure why you ask me for a reference. I have spoken about the fact that certain information can be modeled in a certain way in Wikidata and not that a particular person was killed a particular way. ChristianKl❫ 14:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I guess we could have a property for either (manner of death or femicide). --- Jura 08:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your suggestions. I think it would be great if we can put femicide as a manner of death (P1196) and use subclass of (P279) to clarify that is a form of homicide. Like it is in this example: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q39252279. But it isn't valid. So I don't know how to solve this issue. --Pablísima (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Pablísima: femicide (Q1342425) already subclasses homicide (Q149086). Currently, that claim has no source. Can you add a source that says it's a femicide? ChristianKl❫ 11:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @ChristianKl: I've just added two sources that confirming that femicide is a type of homicide.--Pablísima (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Creating new items for humans based on Commons categories[edit]

Hi all. tl;dr: is it OK to create new Wikidata items for all humans that have Commons categories?

The longer version: I've been doing a lot of work over the last year to get Commons sitelinks added to Wikidata, so that commons:Template:Wikidata Infobox can be added to commons categories. This is now at the stage where about a third of Commons has sitelinks, and more have candidate items waiting to be matched in the distributed game. As the next step, I wrote a bot that looks for Commons categories about humans that don't have an existing sitelink (or a possible match queued in the game, or any other matches from search or from the uses of images in that category, which are then added into the game for review). It then creates new items for them, importing birth/death years and gender from the Commons categories where possible. The bot was proposed and approved last month by User:Ymblanter.

Since then I've been doing some short runs of ~100 new items to make sure it was working OK, and yesterday I set it going on a run of ~1000 items. About half-way through that run, User:Multichill blocked the bot, saying that the new items don't meet the notability criteria. I think they are notable as they have a Commons category. There was a subsequent discussion about that on my talk page, but Multichill (and @Jheald, Christian Ferrer:) may want to repost their comments here.

You can see the bot-created items here. Most are only bot-edited so far, but some like Raymond Bardet (Q60439263) have been expanded by humans, and Miles Armitage (Q60318705) even led to the creation of a Wikipedia article. It does create some duplicates, e.g. Q60439069, but that's inevitable and I've tried to minimise that as much as possible.

I'd like to restart the bot task, but it needs further consensus. So, what does everyone here think - are these OK notability-wise, and is it OK to bot-create them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I think almost all of those items would satisfy WD:N criterion 3 (structural need), if not criterion 2 (notable entity). This would also make Commons structured data a bit more useful. Jc86035 (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I am not opposing Commonscat-only sitelinked items in general, but I have two concerns about it:
  • Unlike in Wikipedias, information in Commons categories is typically not backed by any sources. If we now start to create Wikidata items based on unsourced Commons categories, we have unsourced Wikidata items. It would be much easier for me to accept those new items if there was some identification against external sources provided in the items during creation process, or if references for critical claims were provided. Items such as Bart Bauer (Q60439662), Bernard Baudin (Q60439643), Geoffrey Barusei (Q60439525), or Lluis Bartrina (Q60439512) from the recent Pi_bot batch are barely useful for Wikidata, and in fact it is difficult for random editors who visit the item to improve anything in it.
    We have a substantial similar problem with items whose only (non-Commons) sitelink has been deleted in the past. There are really lots of them, most of them do not surface to any attention. They are practically abandoned, do not receive maintenance any longer, and are not backed by any sources. In surprisingly many cases, it is impossible to identify which person is described by those items at all, and administratively we do not even remotely manage to keep up with the resulting necessary deletion workload of no-longer notable items. Please let’s not increase this problem and provide external identification from the first moment on.
  • There is also continuous doubt about Commons’ notability criteria for categories. I am often surprised which content persists at Commons, lots of which appears out of scope for Wikidata. This looks like another potential venue for self-promoters to establish notability of items which we would otherwise not accept.
Finally a relevant number: we have around 19.000 items about humans with a sitelinks to Commons only. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: One thing to consider is that nearly all of these items will have media attached that make it easier to identify the subject and then to expand the item. That's akin to a reference, but a different type than is usually considered on Wikipedias. I could auto-add an image as well, but I'd only be able to do that randomly, so it's probably better if a human does that later on. In terms of numbers: pi bot has created between 1,000 and 2,000 so far, which has done the A's - so maybe there are around 30,000 new items to create to start with, as a rough estimate. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I have concerns similar to MisterSynergy's. There are few -if any - rules on Commons as to who gets their own category. The only real criteria seems to be that a photo was uploaded to Commons. Every day people try to create Wikipedia articles about themselves and upload promotional images of themselves to Commons to include in their articles. The articles then get deleted rather quickly because the persons are entirely non-notable, but the images often stay around on Commons forever. And sooner or later someone comes along and creates a category for this person so the image doesn't stay uncategorized.
Which means there are countless categories for persons that are not notable in any way or form. Often times the only thing known about them is their name - and even that is often not verifyable through reliable sources. IMO that's not valuable data that can be used in any way of form, that's just noise clogging up the database. Sure, some of them are most likely for persons that would definitely be notable on Wikidata and Wikipedia, but not necessarily.
We also already have lots of SEO people trying to add spam to Wikidata about themselves or their clients, so they can get a nice little information box shown in the Google results. Most of them can get deleted quickly because without external IDs and serious references, they don't mmeet our notability criteria. But if all they need to do is upload a photo to Commons and create a category for it, it won't be long before SEO guides will include that strategy. --Kam Solusar (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Googles Infoboxes are based on the Google knowledge graph, new Wikidata items don't make it automatically into Google infoboxes. ChristianKl❫ 14:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I know that a Wikidata item doesn't automatically result in a corresponding Google Knowledge graph being created. But a while ago I looked around on various SEO sites and forums, and there were indeed various people recommending creating Wikidata items because it would (in their opinion) boost the likelyhood of Google creating new knowledge graph entries and would help getting their information out there. Just two or three weeks ago I stumbled upon a whole series of new items for German SEO people, all with similar statements and no external IDs or independent sources. And of course they all had a photo of the person included. Pretty much all them were deleted thankfully. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Kam Solusar: In those cases, nominate the photos + category for deletion on Commons, and then the connected Wikidata here could also be deleted? It seems a double standard to say to do that on Wikipedias (which is what I've seen on RfDs here asking for Wikidata entries to be deleted) but not on Commons. I don't buy that they are 'countless' cases of this, and there is commons:Commons:Project scope. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the difference between Wikipedia and Commons is, that it's a lot harder to get your own Wikipedia article and the big language versions are pretty good when it comes to dealing with entirely non-notable persons on their own. Whereas on Commons, it seems pretty much anyone can upload a few photos of themselves and create a category without much interference. In my experience, Commons simply doesn't have the manpower to evaluate all those categories and images. And neither does Wikidata have the manpower to really look into all such items. Sure, if I see one, I can nominate it for deletion - but that would require either stumbling upon it by chance or spending lots of time combing through those categories, checking whether any file is currently used or could potentially be used somewhere. --Kam Solusar (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, Commons quite deliberately has a lower threshold of notability than most Wikipedias. E.g.: almost any Wikimedian; every speaker at a notable conference; any member of the faculty of a notable college or university; any head of a department of any city government; etc. - Jmabel (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that **In addition, sitelinks on category items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons are allowed if and only if they are linked with category pages on other Wikimedia sites.** within our notability policy is quite clear on Commons categories not being notable per default.
I'm not opposed to changing that if the Wikidata Commons integration needs those items, but I do think we shouldn't simple ignore the existing policy. I would also read (3) in our policy as being about structural needs within Wikidata and not about needs within other projects. ChristianKl❫ 15:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: In this case we're not talking about category items (which is where instance of (P31)=Wikimedia category (Q4167836)), we're talking about topic items. In my view, those then get covered by the first part of notability ("It contains at least one valid sitelink to a page on [...] Wikimedia Commons." - where a Wikipedia 'page' corresponds to a Commons 'category'.) It's also not clear if the notability guidelines need to be updated, as there was related discussion at Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_4#RfC:_Notability_and_Commons that wasn't fully resolved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • More or less same doubt like MisterSynergy. As a possible solution we can give a month before cancellation, if nobody adds some data that show the notability, they will be deleted --ValterVB (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • For many of the Wikimedians who have Commons categories, de"Wikipedia:Persönliche_Bekanntschaften/Teilnehmerliste should qualify as a reference. - Jmabel (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • As a Commons admin: there are certainly categories on Commons that do not have notability in their own right. Much as Wikidata has structural needs, so does Commons. For a recent example in my own work, commons:Category:Engine room of Virginia V (ship, 1922) does not mean that the engine room is notable in its own right, it simply means that we have (currently) 42 photos of the same compartment on a particular notable ship, and that was enough to merit a category of its own. Similarly, there is nothing notable about Category:October 2018 in Seattle, it's just a place to store 200+ photos that come from the same city in the same month.
    • If we are going to start hauling in Wikimedia Commons categories wholesale as Wikidata items, we probably need the two projects to coordinate. There needs to be a way to mark which Wikimedia Commons categories are not notable in their own right; presuming that work is to be done on the Commons side, that would require building a consensus there on something for which we've never before needed a consensus. Separately, Wikidata would need to decide whether that criterion means we don't create a Wikidata item at all or, if it is needed for structural purposes, that we mark it accordingly.
    • I personally think any wholesale approach to creating Wikidata items for Commons categories could wait until the "structured data for Commons" project has proceeded a bit further. - Jmabel (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems that there is the same problematic here and Wikimedia Commons (and in other projects too), here we talk about of lacks of notability, and in Commons we say "out of scope". And when we talk about items/categories that are about persons, then we talk about the exact same thing. As administrator in Commons, it happens that I speedy delete out of scope content, as well as the categories that contained the images. When there is a corresponding item, I come here to take a look, and without serious references (therefore with lacks of notability), the existance of this item don't prevent me to delete the content in Wikimedia Commons. And usually, when the deletion is done, I nominate the item here for deletion. However I don't know if the other administrators are doing the same thing. In a perfect world, we should work together, and have perfect reciprocity. In case that a category in Commons, that has an associated item, is deleted for being out of scope, then the attention of the Wikidata community should be drawn to this item. Conversely if a item here that has an associated category in Commons is deleted, then this fact should be brought to the attention of the Commons community. When we find inappropriate content in a project, let us take advantage of our work the other project. All this is done in an automated way would be perfect. Personnaly I think the future will be a clear increase of the connectivity between the both projects, the problem is more to find solutions to the disadvantages generated, than to limit the connectivity to prevent the disadvantages. The second option is only a short-term vision and is doomed to failure. I support the creation of such items, as well as all other things (such as properties) that should be a need for Commons and in the scope of the "Structured data for Commons". That said, I am sorry for the potential disadvantages for Wikidata, and we should evolve our policies and guides, both here and in Commons, for that we can work towards the same way. Example I was talking above a kind of "automatic reciprocity" in case of deletions, the first thing should be that Wikidata:Deletion policy and Commons:Deletion policy contains a procedure to follow, why not with examples, in cases of deletions for all kind of things that are connected within the both projects. That's exactly the same thing for the Wikidata notability and for the Commons scope. While we have, and likely we should keep, some differences, IMO it is very important that we have some common parts, and references to each other. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the time has now come to create items for all categories on Commons.
First let's consider a case like the WMF staffer Juliet Barbara (Q60439088) / c:Category:Juliet_Barbara, which is the example (raised by User:Jean-Frédéric) that started off the discussion on Mike's talk page, with User:Multichill objecting that he thought she was not notable and should not have an item here (and on that basis stopping Mike's bot).
The problem is for Structured Data on Commons to work as intended, there need to be items like Q60439088 here. In order for SDC to be able to fulfill requests like "Show pictures of WMF staffers" or "Show pictures of people called Barbara", as well as analytical queries like "How many Commons pictures depict people we know the names of" or "How many people we know the names of are depicted on Commons", those require us to be able to tag a picture like File:Juliet-IMG 4052.jpg with depicts (P180) Juliet Barbara (Q60439088) and for the item Q60439088 to exist so that statements like instance of (P31) human (Q5), employer (P108) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (Q180), given name (P735) Barbara (Q153957) have somewhere they can be recorded. SDC simply doesn't work without items like Q60439088 -- they are intrinsic for SDC being able to describe what an image depicts and to be able to record or access the relevant attributes of that depicted thing.
Each 'simple' Commons category represents something that the images in it have a relationship to, so an item that is going to be needed for it to be possible to express the relationship in statement form. This is the very essence of "structural need" as policy understands it. Jheald (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Let me also say that there is a real advantage to letting Mike get on with things now, so that (i) all these items are already present, and can be ready for systematic use as soon as SDC goes live; and (ii) in the process we pick up as soon as possible an awful lot of missing things that we should have had items for a long time ago, but didn't even know we hadn't got. Systematic reconciliation of Commons things to Wikidata is something we should have started a long time ago. It's not going to be a small job -- after people there are going to be places, monuments, geographical entities, types of things, etc, that are all going to need to be looked at. But it's a necessity for SDC, and something I think Wikidata is also likely to gain a huge amount from in terms of improved completeness. So I think we should be applauding Mike for the work he has been getting underway, and right now doing everything we can to let him get on with it. Jheald (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Somebody like Bart Bauer (Q60439662), mentioned above, is likely to remain notable on Commmons, because he's a US Navy photographer who has taken hundreds of photos that are present on Commons. His Wikidata item would be a desirable linking target for structured data. Perhaps it will turn out that there's little publicly available information about him and so not much to put in the item. But the existence of the item is still useful. Ghouston (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
The broader question is what to do with categories like c:Category:Theatre posters of the United Kingdom, 1884. In my view, the balance of advantage has shifted, and it would be immensely useful to be systematically creating items for categories like that too, where we can transpose the text of their names into statements. (eg category combines topics (P971) : poster (Q429785) (instance of (P31)) / theater (Q11635) (field of work (P101)) / United Kingdom (Q145) (country of origin (P495)) / 1884 (Q7819) (publication date (P577)).
The first advantage items like this give us is the possibility of Wikidata infoboxes, to finally allow the meaning and relevant data for what these categories represent to be communicated to users internationally and multilingually. This has been a very long-standing request by users on Commons, and their introduction has gained overwhelming support.
The second advantage is that much of this information directly corresponds to the information will be needed for individual file pages by the SDC project -- indeed, in many cases the categorisation is the only way this appears at the moment in any way even slightly amenable to machine interpretation. Creating items for the categories, and populating them with the relevant descriptive statements, is therefore really valuable (and timely now) as a stepping stone for being able to cascade the information down further to relevant file pages. Moreover, through making the information available through the wikidata item and the wikidata infobox it is available and transparent and accessible, so that anyone can add it, inspect it, correct it, extend it -- essential for collaborative working (because this task is going to be so big it is going to need to be something people can collaborate on); and also of usefulness as an ongoing consistency check for the data on the files themselves -- if the files have a manually set categorisation, does the statement of what that category represents correspond with the statements on the file? If not, what are the anomalies? Can they be explained or cleared up?
Thirdly, having statements on items for categories like this helps us understand the category structure itself. Do the statements for the category correspond with the statements for the categories it is in? Are there statements that are missing, or inconsistent? Do they help understand 'simple' categories that are in the tree below them? Are there statements on those that appear to be missing, or inconsistent? Are there further categorisations of the category, or category refinements that could be made? Similarly, do they reveal further categorisations that ought to be present for some of the files in them? Indeed, with really systematic structured descriptions of what the categories mean, it should be possible to move towards significantly machine-assisted categorisation, trickling a file down from the top and identifying all the categories where it should be land up and be included. With luck it should be possible to greatly add to both the comprehensiveness and accuracy of categorisation, both of files and of categories themselves. (With some further additional knock-on bonuses of missing property identification for corresponding 'simple' items on Wikidata).
But all of this only becomes possible if items exist for the categories, otherwise there is nowhere to store the statements about them. That is a new step, but in my view it is a step that the time has now come to take. None of this is possible without it. Jheald (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the items that the bot was creating are not notable according to current criteria. If there would be external sources describing those items, then it would be ok, but that is not the case. In my view the easiest solution would be if those items were created in the Wikibase instance for Commons, and also created here and connected whenever they are notable. It is not a problem to have 2 wikibase instances (Wikidata and Commons) with a different set of items.--Micru (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It won't be possible to create items on the Commons Wikibase. Ghouston (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not? It is being developed now, make it possible.--Micru (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed, for such reasons given here, but rejected by the developers. Ghouston (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Gather support, and propose it again. If enough users ask for it, they might change their mind.--Micru (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: I pushed for it really hard. They simply don't want to know. Plus they already feel very pushed to deliver even what they are already committed to deliver -- there's no slack available for scoping out new commitments. Besides, it may well make sense to keep all structured information about categories on the same wikibase -- splitting it between here and Commons wikibase creates considerable difficulties. I believe their current plan is to create only MediaInfo objects on Commons wikibase -- all other sorts of items are expected to live here. Jheald (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: In that case you might consider another wikibase instance to store those items. I don't think there is willingness here to open the floodgates to so many un-notable items by Wikidata standards.--Micru (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: Part of what Wikidata is here for (and is funded for) is to support the needs of all of the Wikimedia community of projects. It's not appropriate for editors here to stand in the way of something of critical value to a sister project. Jheald (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: The Wikidata community is definitely commited to support the needs of all of the Wikimedia community of projects, as long as that doesn't compromise the integrity of Wikidata itself. You cannot ask for something that goes against the values of the community.--Micru (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: On the question of complex categories, it's worth looking at the numbers. We currently have about 2 million Commons categories linked to items here (a bit under 30%), out of an approximate total current 7.32 Commons categories [6]. However, when User:Mike Peel looked at a sample of 1000 un-sitelinked categories in June last year (sample he found that very many were not "intersection" categories, but were actually for simple topics of the sort that the present policy text already allows items to be created for.
So I don't accept that broadening the criteria to allow the final (say) 2 million categories that are intersection categories would necessarily be "opening the floodgates" or "going against the values of the community". They would merely be an extension of the category items we already host, quite happily. While on the other side of the balance, intersection concepts like this are exactly where there is most to gain by describing them by way of statements, for all the reasons set out above. So I don't understand why you have such fear of them, or what harm you think their inclusion here would do? Jheald (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: If we are talking about "Creating new items for humans based on Commons categories", why do you bring up the topic of "complex categories"? It is offtopic, so I refuse to comment on it on this thread.--Micru (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: The requirement of external sources for notability (criterion 2) doesn't apply where there is structural need (criterion 3) -- these are two separate independent routes to pass WD:N. The items also appear to pass criterion 1, under the current wording. Jheald (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: It is unclear if they fulfill the structural need criterion. That is a question to solve here (btw, I think you got your criteria numbers wrong, I have corrected them).--Micru (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: Policy refinement is always possible, but per the current text the requirement is for items to meet "at least one of the criteria". They currently appear to be meeting #1 and #3. (Thanks for correcting my numbering above) Jheald (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: Which argument do you use for them to be able to fulfill #1? Those categories are not linked to other categories in other Wikimedia projects. Beyond what is written there, there is also the opinion of editors here, and I do not think that they would allow to use any loophole in the policy to circumvent their wishes.--Micru (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: The qualification I think you are thinking of is a requirement relating to "sitelinks on category items to category pages on Wikimedia Commons". The items Mike has been creating have been main items, not category items. Per the current wording, main items are under no such restriction.
Personally, I would do away with the restriction, to allow broader creation of category items for Commons categories. But that is a wider question than what Mike has been doing. Jheald (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: In the past sitelinks from items not representing categories to Commons categories were not allowed. Do you have the link to the discussion when it changed? I cannot find it, and Help:Sitelinks doesn't say anything about Commons.--Micru (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Supposedly the restriction that only category-items could link to Commons categories was adopted in this 2013 RFC. But that close (by a now-banned editor) was always dubious. It bore little relation to the most popular option, was never really implemented, never had buy-in from the Commons community, and year by year became ever more strongly ignored. As the hatnote on the 2013 RfC indicates it's now really only of historic interest. By June last year there were 4x more Commons categories with sitelinks to main items than to category items. (data). The ratio is probably even higher now.
The text of WD:N was changed by User:Mahir256 in March of last year to reflect this [7] after users had been confused, with a revision by User:Jura1 about thirty minutes later [8] to give the current formulation; which has stuck since then. Discussions and a short edit war to try to change it further (see eg two long threads at Wikidata_talk:Notability/Archive_4) have so far been inconclusive. The current text thus permits main-type items to be created at will for Commons categories that eg represent real-world things that have pictures taken of them or statements made about them, on the same basis that such items can be created for things with an article in a particular-language wikipedia. But beyond that, category-type items, eg for 'complex' / 'intersection' categories, may be created only if the category also exists on a non-Commons wiki. Jheald (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: WD:N reflects the current understanding. The usage data should be presented in a comprehensible way to support an amendment. I think the text can be changed to reflect better current practices, but definitely not to stretch the guidelines beyond of what is accepted.--Micru (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Micru: Please clarify: Are you saying above that WD:N does reflect the current understanding, or WD:N should reflect the current understanding? According to the current (stable) text, Mike's new items pass route #1 of WD:N. Jheald (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussion noted at c:Commons_talk:Structured_data#Notability_discussion_on_Wikidata Jheald (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jheald: Should reflect. Even if the text might read as if the created items pass criterion #1, they do not, so the text should be amended to reflect that understanding in a way that it is more clear.--Micru (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I appologize that I did not have patience to read all the comments above. However I looked at dozen new items created by Mike and great majority seemed perfectly notable. Unfortunatelly there often was no information in the item or in the Commons category to prove that notability. I see such items as good stubs ready for others to expand, but unless someone expands them they are quite useless. I would suggest starting with the people for whom we have the most information, like occupation, nationality, dates of birth and death, which can be extracted from the categories. I would avoid at the members of c:Category:Wikimedians by name, c:Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff, etc. or items like Category:Asaf Bartov by year (Q60439508). Maybe we could prioritize members of c:Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link, althought some of those already have wikidata items. --Jarekt (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It is possible that the items could be potentially notable, however as they are now, they are not. The information about the potential notability should be provided by the creator, not expected to be provided by someone else. You can provide the proof of notability in Commons, and import only the items that have such information there.--Micru (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt: I went for commons:Category:People by name on the basis that it should just contain people (but it's not perfect, as Category:Asaf Bartov by year (Q60439508) demonstrated). c:Category:Pages using authority control without Wikidata link is a mix of people and other things so would need some extra logic coding up, but I could focus on that. I could also exclude a given list of categories, which could be generated based on the WMF/Wikimedian categories if need be. I'd be happy if this conversation ended up saying "we'll accept new items for wikimedia categories with <these defined criteria>, and <these defined exclusions>", but those needs to be things that can be coded (which 'notable' on its own is not). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Mike, I had the same issue while creating wikidata items for large number of people then in c:Category:Creator templates without Wikidata link. I considered person notable if they had authority control identifiers, or if they had enough identyfying information to disambiguate their identity, like full name and dates of birth and death (at least one), or link to a reference, etc. If all we have is a name and occupation than it might not be enough to tell two people with the same name apart. I do not claim that such approach guarantees that someone is notable, after all you can get all of those from a random tumbstone, but I think it improves the odds. I would support a creation of new items if you avoided wikimedians, WMF staff, etc. (unless they are notable) and added more info based on category names, like dates of birth and death, occupation, citizenship, etc. By the way, in the past I used this AWB module and other similar ones to scrape off some of such info. Finally do you have any system for matching categories to existing items, so you do not create duplicates? --Jarekt (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jarekt: Birth/death dates (and gender) were already being added. Occupation and citizenship are a bit harder to automatically derive from the category names, I'll have a think about how to do that. Apart from the extensive work I've already done to add sitelinks to existing items, any remaining possible matches (found primarily through search) are added to my distributed game for human checking, and are then avoided by the bot until the matches have been checked. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I Symbol support vote.svg Support Creating categories of humans based on Commons cats. I would not say that every Commons category needs a Wikidata item, at categories like c:Category:Aglais io on Hylotelephium flowers or c:Category:Brandenburg Gate from east that dose not make sense. But every "main-category", what person categories are, should have a Wikidata item. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Items for top level categories for people (vs. XX in 2017, etc.). Jheald and Ghouston explain well the usefulness of items for some of these supposedly non-notable people. Gamaliel (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Having done some manual matching of economists derived from external authority files, I'd share the concerns and suggestions of Jarekt: The more persons identified only by their name (plus perhaps a picture, which normally does not help for researchers) we have in Wikidata, the harder the job of manually matching and adding more verified information gets. Jneubert (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Creating items for people who have a category on Commons. That is needed for SDC to work, and it meets current Wikidata policy. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guidelines here need to evolve. It is possible to imagine how we would accidentally out anonymous photographers by the synthesis of categories on Wikidata. Wikidata contributors diligently, and sometimes automatically, add birth dates, portrait photographs, work exemplars, references, artistic taxonomies and so on to a bio entry. A few of these correlations could easily line up alternative names with a photographer's or artist's real identity which may be original research. -- (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: this is not the right venue for these decisions. This proposal will add a loophole for Wikidata notability. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Sjoerddebruin: Where would the right venue be? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    Wikidata:Requests for comment, those are announced in the weekly newsletter and above the watchlist of every user. Reaching consensus on a project chat seems weird to me, but maybe that is because we have guidelines about that on the Dutch Wikipedia. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Sjoerddebruin: Ah, this wasn't meant as an RfC, just to sound out what others thought about the issue to see if setting the bot re-running was controversial or not. I might do a more general RfC at some point about what different types of Commons categories it would make sense to bot-create wikidata items for, but that's something for the future. (Also, it does not look like RfCs actually get closed / acted on in a reasonable timeframe here from the list on that page!) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    Not sure if the whole import is a good idea, but I don't see a problem to send false positives/not notables to WD:RFD, item creation doesn't establish notability, that's what WD:RFD is made for. --Marsupium (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support first create wikidata item from category, then create creator template at commons, fill in references from authority control and artist databases. Slowking4 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Official colors (school colors, team colors, etc.)[edit]

Is there currently a way to note official colors of an organization, like a school or a sports team? I can't find a property that seems appropriate, and color (P462) with qualifiers seems inelegant. Trivialist (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why

< Liverpool F.C. (Q1130849) View with Reasonator View with SQID > color (P462) View with SQID < red (Q3142) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

is not enough? Xaris333 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  • would imply to me that Liverpool football club is red, which is not what we mean here. I would support a new property for "official color" = team colors = school colors (Q3246652). - PKM (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That's what I was thinking of—saying a school's colors are blue and white could be interpreted to mean that the school's actual physical structure is blue and white. Trivialist (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree, see stats. At the moment 1496 uses for association football club (Q476028), 124 political party (Q7278), both used by multiple infoboxes.--Jklamo (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
There's also the rather awkwardly named, and not-very discoverable sRGB color hex triplet (P465), which is documented to be used in this sort of context for things like political parties (and seems to have more uses for those than color (P462), which should be harmonised one way or the other). There are currently a tiny handful of uses on sports teams as well, e.g. New York Yankees (Q213417). --Oravrattas (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, I did not know that property :-) I can see 136 political party (Q7278), which is slightly more. I am not sure if there is need for harmonization, as both color (P462) and sRGB color hex triplet (P465) are a slightly different aspects, both can be useful (for example sRGB color hex triplet (P465) for coloring the infobox and color (P462) as infobox parameter). Also for smaller teams/political parties exact sRGB color hex triplet (P465) may not exists.--Jklamo (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2016/07#Colours of a team. 2,5 years ago I asked Project Chat about which property should I use for the colours of a team. Only one person answer and he suggest color (P462) (which could be used with the appropriate qualifier). I have added that property to many teams' items. Is so tired when you asked project chat, get only one or few answers, applied the only suggestion you got and years laters the community want to change that because it was wrong. I am not against of having a new property, is reasonable. I am just showing that repeated situation. I have asked Project chat, I haven't use the property with out asking. If more users answered then, we would have the right property to items 2 years ago. Is so dissapointed. Xaris333 (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not be dissapointed! This is community project, so sometimes there is no one "correct" answer/option. color (P462) is used by multiple versions of Template:Infobox football club (Q5611964), so adding it to teams certainly was not useless.--Jklamo (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
We might also use ”color” modified with <of> “school colors” or “team colors”. - PKM (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It would make sense to have a document that specifies which properties should be used for what purpose with sports team the way we have with embassies at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_International_relations. Such a document would be the only way to come to a consensus about what's right for the sport clubs. @Xaris333: given that you seem interested in the sport items, you might start writing such a document and thinking about where it has to be linked. ChristianKl❫ 09:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I have tried it in the past but we couldn't have an agreement. Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties Xaris333 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: have added player properties to that list - Unnited meta (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/official color Xaris333 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Delusion23
WFC
happy5214
Fawkesfr
Xaris333
A.Bernhard
Cekli829
Japan Football
HakanIST
Jmmuguerza
H4stings
Unnited meta
محمد آدم
Wolverène
Grottem
Petro
Сидик из ПТУ
Sakhalinio Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Association football What do other people of the project have to say about the page? ChristianKl❫ 11:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

    • I would rather support the idea, the property of "official symbol" doesn't not imply linking with sport teams, I guess. Team's official colours are same relevant as e.g. club official emblem. --Wolverène (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FYI all, the new property official color (P6364) was created a couple of weeks ago. - PKM (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Mass creation of new items, no properties, no deduplication[edit]

What does the wikidata hive-mind make of this profile: en.wiki articles with no items?

The linked graph appears to show that, every so often, someone or some people, take it into their head to clear down the backlog of en articles with no items, by the mass creation of items, to the tune of about 30-40k each time. I very strongly suspect that the method is to use Petscan to find such articles; and the creation of items with two strong characteristics: 1) no properties whatsoever and 2) no deduplication whatsoever. Clearly Petscan is designed to enable deduplication to be done rather than willy-nilly item creation; but it is equally possible to override Petscan defaults to force it to create items whether or not there's a string match between the article title and an existing item label.

I suspect at this work is being done by GZWDer (flood) (talkcontribslogs), operated by GZWDer (talkcontribslogs) - by way of example, here are 500 prototypical item creations - no properties, and for 50/50 no labels. I don't know if others also take this sort of approach.

The pros of the approach seem to be that the item is created, and thereafter can be found via a wikidata search. The cons, though, seem to be that none of the items have properties, and so they're not really accessible through WDQS. And there must be a significant proportion of duplicates created.

I'm troubled as to how, if at all, these items ever get surfaced, except on the margin, or through one of Magnus's games. Although it's possible to use Petscan to discover items lacking specific properties, I imagine the mainstream use of Petscan is to ask, does the item exist or does it not; and so I struggle to see a) how the mass of these items get improved, by way of property addition and b) how they are discovered such that they can be deduplicated. And next, given that Petscan, Duplicity &c provides facilities for spotting possible duplicates and deduplicating for articles with no items, once an item is created afaik we lose most or all of the support for deduplication, and so that task becomes more difficult.

In short, if the above narrative is the practice, is it a good thing to be encouraged, or a bad thing to be avoided? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's good or bad, but it is appropriate for more of us to be aware of it. How can we add a deduplication step into this process? Could we get notifications on when the bot runs, so other people can work on the deduplications? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I am currently running a query to get all items created by GZWDer (flood) (talkcontribslogs) without statements. --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hoi, this is a crisis of our own making. We have spurned the efforts at the Cebuan Wikipedia in the past repeatedly. As a group we/you decided that "this was not the thing to do" while at the same time denying the existence of sources used to build up projects like it. They were considered "not good enough".. I speak from personal experience that particularly when we consider a subject like "African towns, and administrative entities" I have been able to link many items created there in a single structure.
The first active purpose of Wikidata is to replace the interwiki system. The way it worked using bots, any and all Wikipedia articles get a link. With Wikidata we gained a better quality and imho it is our own intransigence and inaction to reach out that landed us here. When we want to improve things we start a conversation and ingest the data that is at the basis of the Cebuano ingestion processes. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't even begin to follow your argument, Gerard. This is a discussion about - we find - 745k items, I suspect the majority sourced from en.wiki, which have no statement, a significant proportion of which will be duplicates. I'm not privy to any information on 'spurning the efforts at the Cebuan Wikipedia in the past repeatedly', although I have seen posts of people mortally pissed off at the number of ceb.wiki duplicates in the system. If you're right, we must have done something hella bad to ceb.wiki to deserve this sort & scale of retribution. I suspect you're not right, but by all means develop your thesis without making an a priori assumption that we have a clue what you're talking about.
Arthur, the normal practice is to deduplicate before adding, which is to say not to add duplicates. Most of the good tools exist at the point before an article has been added to wikidata. Few of the good tools exist at the point after duplicates have been created - I can think only of the distributed game. I think prettymuch no-one is really interested in deduplicating someone else's mess, especially on this sort of epic scale.
Perhaps I'm a simple soul: would it not be better not to tolerate this sort of thing, fullstop? I charitably tried to present pros & cons, above, but really, I can see no real pros, just lots of damage which realistically will take years to fix. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I have some experience with attempting to deduplicate both before and after adding items (mostly for organizations). It's tricky - there are some techniques (for example certain classes of SPARQL queries) that are much easier to do after the data import. But of course that usually requires at least some properties - though you can do some interesting deduplication queries based on labels and aliases I guess. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Update: My query has completed, and I converted it into a PagePile for convenience. There are 745,312 items that were created "blank" by GZWDer (flood) (talkcontribslogs), and still (at the time of writing this) do not have any statements. --Magnus Manske (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Wow!! (Thanks for the query, Magnus). That number seems way too high. Now that we are aware of this issue, the obvious question would be: should this continue to be allowed? Maybe we could use some basic guidelines for bot creating items. For instance, checking for duplicates must happen always before creating an item, or all new items should include at least one property (probably more difficult). Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 20:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't the first topic about this process, btw. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
And won't be the last I'm afraid. For the Dutch Wikipedia people are pretty active linking up the unconnected pages to existing and new items. To prevent a backlog from forming I run the new item bot which will only create a new item if the article is at least 28 days old and hasn't been edited for over 21 days. This seems to work quite well. If you look at Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/nlwiki you'll see that the oldest item on the list is from January 2013.
I understand that on the English Wikipedia the number are much larger. But it's worth considering to also deploy the new item robot to at least have an item.
But that still leaves us with the empty items. I still operate User:NoclaimsBot. That robot will only add a claim when an item is empty. See for example this edit. As you can see in the edit summary, the claim is based on the used template. You can configure this on en:User:NoclaimsBot/Template claim. Looking at Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site/enwiki I see quite a few templates that good be added. You only have to do that once and the bot runs every night on that database report. Who wants to help? Multichill (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ideally, we would like that users create items themselves. On the other hand, we don't want that items stay without any item. It feels to me like if we increase the amount of time till an item gets created that might encourage Wikipedians to create proper items. From out side it would be create if in such a case there would be a Item is currently unlinked in the interwiki list for those items. Clicking on that link could pop up a dialog that leads the user through searching for other items and creating a proper item themselves. ChristianKl❫ 09:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm returning now. For reasons to creating such items, see Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot/GZWDer_(flood)_4. tldr: It will make a basis for other improvement (many tools, including PetScan, HarvestTemplates and projectmerge, does not work for unconnected pages).--GZWDer (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Review of edits by user:Zhxy 519[edit]

I am not particularly active at this time, though I have noticed problematic edits and merges by User:Zhxy 519. I have undone those that relate to the wikisources, though others need checking. A native Chinese speak may wish to converse with this user as they seem to be mistaken in matters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. I think I’m getting your points somehow and will stop doing this. However I’m afraid that such edits are not only done by me and quite common in WikiData. Also the traditional foreign language version links on the left side among wiki project pages will be challenged by this, especially in Wikisource. I will reserve my opinion.
  2. Only your undos Q18849710 and Q16260428 undone again. Q18849710 is a page deleted and can be never restored, and Q16260428 is author page which has nothing to do with edition.

Zhxy 519 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that this user is having many bad behaviors e.g. on La Marseillaise (Q41180), Thus He should be blocked here. --2409:8902:9001:7E2B:E47B:BCFE:1199:955D 06:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hippolyte Peragallo (Q21390773) and Hypollyte Peragallo (Q21522800)[edit]

Aren't those the same?

FileExporter beta feature[edit]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 09:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Johanna Strodt (WMDE): Highly appreciated boils down to untested, feedback is rejected by some "insufficient permissions for this action" flow filter on MediaWikiWiki.
Can admins on Commons move files back, if they have to be deleted on Commons? Some US copyright details are rather bizarre (photos of coins = bad 3D, photos of PD pictures = good 2D, etc.), and major parts of the "move to Commons" procedures on dewiki/enwiki try to avoid any move not triple checked by human users, if it could result in a deletion on Commons. –84.46.53.83 13:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to comment. Are you saying you cannot comment on the central feedback page? If so, something might have triggered a false positive of the spam filter, maybe an added link. I’m afraid that’s not in our control.
As for your question about moving files back: It's not a built-in feature, but it’s already possible to delete the file on Commons and restore the original file on the local wiki. Both steps require admin rights. Other users have mentioned this as well, and I’ve created a Phabricator ticket for that: T214065. I hope that helps. -- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox link broken?[edit]

The link to my sandbox has been pointing to a non-existing page (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:MyPage/sandbox?action=edit&redlink=1&editintro=Template%3AUser_sandbox&preload=Template%3AUser_sandbox%2Fpreload), which does not load at all. Has anyone experienced the same issue, and if so, how can it be fixed?--Underlying lk (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Where did you copy this link from? The problem seems to be the "redlink=1" fragment in your link. --Pasleim (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
This is just the page that opens if I click on the 'Sandbox' link at the top-right corner (between talk and preferences).--Underlying lk (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
By default there is no such link in the top-right corner. Do you have some user script or gadget activated which could add it? --Pasleim (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
You're right, it is this gadget:
mySandbox: Add a “Sandbox” link to the personal toolbar area.
The link seems to be broken now.--Underlying lk (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement GUID's and WDQS?[edit]

This may be an extremely technical question but I'm not sure where to find somebody who would know the answer here... According to the RDF specs, "There is no guaranteed format or meaning to the statement id." Nevertheless it appears that statement id's obtained via SPARQL queries are almost identical to the statement id's used in the Wikidata API - for example with 'wbgetclaims' you can specify a "claim GUID" according to this API documentation. The only difference is that the first '-' character in the id obtained via the SPARQL/RDF context is replaced by a '$' character in the API context. Is this a reliable relation? Is it actually documented anywhere??? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: hm, good point, I didn’t realize we don’t guarantee this yet – we already rely on this statement ID format in WikibaseQualityConstraints (here). @Smalyshev (WMF), Duesentrieb: do you know if there’s any reason to keep this unspecified? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Being relied upon in code is actually pretty reassuring - thanks! But it would nice to have the documentation on this clear too... ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Specifying exact formats for such things is dangerous. It means we have to keep them forever, since tools start relying on them. For example, we had to change '$' to '-' because it's harder to represent '$' in RDF URIs in WDQS context. Since we didn't promise statement URIs would match anything, it was an easy fix. However, if we now make such promise, if in the future we'd need to make another change - for compatibility, or efficiency, or any other reason - we may have trouble doing it.
That said, if the user realizes the dangers of relying on the internal IDs and we don't promise to keep it stable forever, and it's useful for something (with full realization this something might break in the future), you can use it. The code generating the statement URI looks like this: preg_replace( '/[^\w-]/', '-', $statement->getGuid() ); - so every non-word non-dash character becomes '-' - and so far we have very little reason to change it further. So with some caveats, it can be used as such. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF): well, that’s what we have the stable interface policy for, isn’t it? It doesn’t mean we’re never allowed to touch the schema ever again, but it does mean that we should give appropriate prior notice to users when we make breaking changes. I think that’s a better way to handle things than to leave it unspecified and then blame the users when they do rely on the unspecified detail (because if you need to address a specific statement in SPARQL whose Wikibase statement ID you know, I don’t think there’s any better way to do it than to turn the statement ID into an IRI). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, if we declare it stable, it would be covered by the policy. I'm just not sure it makes sense to declare it so, since it's an implementation detail... But if you think it's necessary, I think the code above is simple and clear enough so we can document it. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Coffee house[edit]

I have just noticed that Q4236467 was remodelled, some time ago ,from "coffee house" to "Turkish coffee house". Should that be let or reverted? Hindoostane Coffee House (Q5766176), Jonathan's Coffee-House (Q3183299), Nando's Coffee House (Q16930669), Trew Era Cafe (Q19944780) and Carpenter's Coffee House (Q5045652) all use it, and non are Turkish, or Turkish-style. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Given that for example the German translation still refers to the original it should be reverted. The meaning of items shouldn't be changed like that. ChristianKl❫ 17:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. It would seem likely that someone needs to redo the Turkish-language description. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I would just delete the Turkish description given that it's wrong. ChristianKl❫ 14:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Birth rate Death rate[edit]

I can not find any property covering the birthrate or deathrate within a population. Do anyone know of such properties? Have they been proposed anytime? Pmt (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pmt:. I came across total fertility rate (P4841) and thought of you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Link page from wikimedia.Commons with page exisiting on en.wikipedia with no existing item on wikidata fails[edit]

Hello I just created a new phabricator task Link page from wikimedia.Commons with page exisiting on en.wikiipedia with no existing item on wikidata fails which might interest people involved in wikidata. Thanks Robby (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Dishwashing needs, er, cleaning up[edit]

dishwashing (Q336152) has Commons category (P373) -> commons:Category:Dish washing; yet Category:Dishwashing (Q30646425) has the same Commons category linked under "Other sites". Is there a standard way to resolve this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Looks right to me as it is: no cleanup needed?
In a case like this, where we have a Wikidata item for a category, and one for the subject of the category, current working consensus is that the category item here should have the sitelink to the Commons category; both items here should have Commons category (P373) set; and the two items should be interlinked via category's main topic (P301) / topic's main category (P910). The latter allows the Wikidata infobox on the Commons category to find and include information from the subject item, even though it is the category item that it is sitelinked to.
All of the above appears to be in place, so: nothing to fix? Jheald (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Yup, that's all normal as things stand. The main issues here is that dishwashing (Q336152) needs expanding to better describe the topic. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

add statement button at the start[edit]

Is it possible to put an add statement button at the start of a page or the Statement section? It wastes time to scroll (or use find in browser) to get to the button hidden in the middle of long lists of statements and wikilinks. I also tried looking for a gadget.--Roy17 (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

+=b --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 06:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
See phab:T142082. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

data from Wikidata in a semantic mediawiki project[edit]

Can I (or how i can) use data from Wikidata in my Semantic Mediawiki project? Can I use Wikidata's parser functions in a semantic wiki project?

Thanks for your time

Katikei (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

No, see phab:T48556. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

class of award (Q38033430)[edit]

What the hell is a "class of award" and why are awards replaced with something that is totally unexplainable. I intend to revert all of them to award. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it's for a subcategory of an award. Have you informed the relevant users about this? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Because there is a distinction between a specific instance of Award, for example when Barrack Obama got the Nobel Price, and the Nobel Price itself, which is a class of such awards instances. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I suspect it is more the relation between Nobel Prizes in general and (in this case) the Nobel Peace Prize. - Jmabel (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but this implies that counter intuitively, both « Peace Nobel prize » and « Nobel prize » are (instnaces of) classes of awards, as they both have many concrete awarding instances. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not the case. Mr Obama is a recipient of the Nobel Price, but the award is the recognition; Recognition in a specific tradition. There is no Nobel Price itself as it has its own subdivisions all Nobel prize, all part of that same recognition. All the words are meaningless in themselves.. It is not explained what an award class is, why we need it. It cannot be explained and therefore it is fud. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would expect just about every award (exceptions might be things like Orteig Prize (Q1930819)) are awarded many times, some of them many times in a single year. So they are (in general) abstract, and not specific concrete objects. And we have our usual confusion about where to put them in our class hierarchy. Some clear thinking is needed, but I'm not sure quite the best way to approach it... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    Proposition to clarify the terminology (every concept do not necessarily have to have its own item or property on Wikidata, it’s just at this point an attempt that we all discuss on the same page):
    • An « award-event » is a decision of a group of person / organisation that decides to reward somebody / another organisation for some reason.
    • There might be several things associated to an award event, such as a ceremony, a prize, a symbolic object such as a medal, an eternal gratitude or a symbolic title …
    Some award events may be unique, such as a sport event unique in history, or there may be several events of the same kind, there is many award events for the Nobel-price for example.
    • An « award-type » has « award-event » instances. In that sense, the Nobel Prize is an award-type. There is many things that we can associate to an award type, such as the period of recurrence of the ceremonies (yearly for the Peace Nobel Prize), the nature of the price itself (amount of money if relevant for example)
    • An « award-reward » is what is given to the recipient.
    Questions : The meaning of award recieved search. Is the value of « award received » the award-reward, the award-event, an award-type, any of these ? What is the « Nobel prize » item ? If we read the first sentence of the french or english article, the answer is probably « an award-reward-type ». author  TomT0m / talk page 11:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That is so far removed from what we do, it does not even register. We register awards, when they are awarded to a given person and that is it. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Elected[edit]

Hello. Is there a way to show that the person who held a position (Q4164871) is elected or appointed by?

For example, President of the European Commission (Q8882) is appointed by (P748) European Parliament (Q8889).

How can I show that President of Cyprus (Q841760) is elected (chosen by the voters)?

Moreover, how can I show that President of Cyprus (Q841760) is elected with Cypriot presidential election (Q60676589)?

Or maybe is one way to show them? Xaris333 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I found elected in (P2715) this could be used for your problem. But the President of the European Commission (Q8882) is also elected by the European Parliament (Q8889). So we need an item for "Election of the President of the European Commission" --GPSLeo (talk)
The usual method to show that President of Cyprus (Q841760) is elected in Cypriot presidential election (Q60676589) is with a office contested (P541) on the election, e.g.
To show that only a restricted set of people can vote in such an election, elector (P2319) is used, e.g.
--Oravrattas (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Something more complicated. If we have Mayoral Elections Elections, we should have different item from each Municipality? For example,

etc

or

< Mayoral Elections Elections, Cyprus (Limassol Municipality) > office contested (P541) View with SQID < Mayor of Limassol Municipality (Q28078366) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
< Mayoral Elections Elections, Cyprus (Nicosia Municipality) > office contested (P541) View with SQID < Mayor of Nicosia Municipality (Q12878858) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
< Mayoral Elections Elections, Cyprus (Larnaca Municipality) > office contested (P541) View with SQID < Mayor of Larnaca Municipality (Q28078123) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

and

< Mayoral Elections Elections, Cyprus (Limassol Municipality) > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
< Mayoral Elections Elections, Cyprus (Nicosia Municipality) > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
< Mayoral Elections Elections, Cyprus (Larnaka Municipality) > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

Xaris333 (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

You will end up with a separate item for each individual election you want to store distinct information about e.g "2016 Limassol Mayoral Election": each individual election is a distinct thing, and would also have separate values for ballots cast (P1868), total valid votes (P1697), successful candidate (P991), etc. Having those all share the same base class (e.g. "Mayoral Election in Cyprus") isn't wrong in any way, but introducing a new item for each distinct one ("2016 Limassol Mayoral Election" is instance of "Limassol Mayoral Election" is subclass of "Mayoral Election in Cyprus") gives you a little more flexibility (e.g. being able to add distinct office contested (P541) values), at a one time cost. --Oravrattas (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oravrattas: I am confused. You mean:

< 2016 Limassol Mayoral Election > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Limassol Mayoral Election >
< Limassol Mayoral Election > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

and

< 2016 Limassol Mayoral Election > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < 2016 Mayoral Election, Cyprus >
< 2016 Mayoral Election, Cyprus > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) View with Reasonator View with SQID >

? Xaris333 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xaris333: 2016 Limassol Mayoral Election is a specific item, so whichever route you take it would use instance of (P31) rather than subclass of (P279). My suggestion would be:
< 2016 Limassol Mayoral Election > instance of (P31) View with SQID < Limassol Mayoral Election >
< Limassol Mayoral Election > subclass of (P279) View with SQID < Cyprus Mayoral Election >
(or even just mayoral election (Q15280243))
I'm not entirely sure what Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) represents (or will represent) — items named in the plural are usually representations of Wikimedia list article (Q13406463). If this is something new you're creating for this purpose, I'd name it in the singular rather than the plural. --Oravrattas (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Oravrattas: Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170) is like Italian local elections (Q3722112). For president, we have Cypriot presidential election (Q60676589). For local goverments, municipalities, we have Mayoral Election, Cyprus (Q60686170). Xaris333 (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

In your example, there is not an item 2016 Mayoral Election, Cyprus. I add that because the elections for all Cypriot Municipalities, for example at 2016, are called 2016 Mayoral Election, Cyprus. So, 2016 Limassol Mayoral Election, 2016 Nicosia Mayoral Election, 2016 Larnaca Mayoral Election etc was part of 2016 Mayoral Election, Cyprus. I just wanted to clear that. It's ok with me not to use that item, but is that the correct way? Xaris333 (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat -> Add topic[edit]

In some wikis, when you go to the last topic of Project chat, you have the option to select Edit and Add topic. You don't have to go to the top of the page to select Add topic. Not a serious problem but sometimes Project chat is too big... Xaris333 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a gadget (Preferences->Gadgets) named NewSection that does that. --Shinnin (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How active: WikiData Community[edit]

I am a data scientist who has always believed in freedom of information. I would wish to contribute multiple terabytes of datasets and sources that I have accumulated and are public.

Please respond if this community is active and discuss with me how best to do this.

I’m a fan of this idea!

posted by PassionateCuriosity (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata:Data donation. Paucabot (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the community - it's definitely on the active side! :) If you haven't seen it yet, Wikidata:Data_donation is a good place to start on how to go about contributing/onboarding data. Who to reach out to specifically really depends on the domain on your data. There are different WikiProjects each with their own area of expertise. One of the challenges is to match the schema of your data to Wikidata's - which is where the expertise of various WikiProjects comes in. the What sort of data are you hoping to contribute? Cheers! ElanHR (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paucabot: @ElanHR: Can either of you add notation to correct my note edited in the signature for "PassionateCuriosity" following the original comment above? I don't know the template for adding it properly? Or @PassionateCuriosity:, perhaps you can edit it and sign with four tildes? Regards. Trilotat (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability of categories[edit]

I've been reading Wikidata:Notability and I'm not able to understand what to do with categories in a project with no interwikis to other projects. It seems I have to create the items if the category is, for example, from catalan wikipedia but I do not have to create the item if the category is from Commons. Am I right? Thanks in advance. Paucabot (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much. There seems to be consensus that any category on any Wikipedia necessarily represents something notable by Wikidata standards. There is not the same consensus for categories on Commons. - Jmabel (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jmabel:! Paucabot (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Creating an associated Wikidata items for categories also provides a place to add structure even when there are currently no interlanguage links. For instance, Category:2015 films (Q6293942) is a Wikimedia set category (Q59542487) and defines strict semantics for membership(SPARQL) via Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921). This provides a great way to discover missing articles and also wards against bad interlanguage links based solely on translation. One such case of this error happening is with en:Category:Biography_(genre) which had been linked to ru:Категория:Персоналии_по_алфавиту (a category containing all articles using en:Category:People and person infobox templates) presumably because it translates to "biographies". ElanHR (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Related discussion: #Creating new items for humans based on Commons categories. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek, ElanHR, Jmabel: And what about wikipedia administration or maintenance categories from one wikipedia that do not have interwikis (like, for example Q60590662? Should we create an item for them here? Paucabot (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Replying only because pinged: on that last, I don't care. - Jmabel (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

BBLD claims Wikidata contains false info[edit]

An IP today added this link to the English Wikipedia article on Wikidata: [9] (it is in German, and one needs to scroll down). Does anybody know what the story is? Should we do something about it?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The IP is most likely the subject of the second community global ban; is he the author of at least that section of that BBLD page? Mahir256 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I do not think the BBLD page is freely editable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
There were two complaints about Baltisches Biographisches Lexikon Digital ID (P2580), both of which have now apparently been corrected by an IP address. Firstly the property had the general format as a regular expression (P1793) "[A-Za-z0-9][-.0-9A-Za-z]+", which does not come from the BBLD, whereas they have published the presumably more accurate regular expression "^[0-9A-Z][-.0-9A-Za-z]{1,62}[0-9Xa-z.]$". This has been updated now, but they have added the start time (P580) qualifier which apparently is not valid - I don't know how important that is. Secondly the label contained the string "(former scheme)" in English with an equivalent addition in German and French. These parenthetic comments do not come from the BBLD and have now been removed. So as long as those changes are OK, I think that the allegation in the link that Wikimedia is spreading false information about the BBLD should now be answered. Strobilomyces (talk) 17:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Management of that BBLD database is pretty crappy. Within roughly the past half year, they have moved to another domain, continuously change identifiers, and mix different identifier concepts (apparently ISNI style, ISBN style, and native BBLD style). All of that is bad style in the context of linked data, but we are not in control of it.
If something like this happens, we still retain the old identifier values and the old formatter URL (which is to be deprecated to deactivate links in the Web UI); mind that this is an identifier in the first place, not a mere weblink to that resource. To handle the new identifiers + new domain, there needs to be another, new property which I proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Baltisches Biographisches Lexikon Digital ID (new scheme); to disambiguate, the old one is marked with "(old scheme)" postfixes, and it needs to be reset basically to the mid-2018 setting. Whoever wants to retrieve links for that resource will have to use the new property once it is created and filled with values. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The site is missing an impressum (Q1075810). Thus it is not reliable at all. ---Succu (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Succu:, can you add an <instance of> or <subclass of> statement to impressum (Q1075810), since you understand what it is? - PKM (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
No. At least in Germany there is a impressum obligation (Q1660394). If this is a website of Baltic Historical Commission (Q12360160) they are obliged to follow this rule. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Scottish clan chiefs[edit]

Should "Chief of Clan Maclean" be a position held, or is it considered a noble title? --RAN (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It seems to be an inherited position, so a noble title. If there are some duties associated with the position, perhaps it would be both? Ghouston (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That would probably make more sense if I'd used "title" instead of "position" in two instances. Ghouston (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

same object?[edit]

Can somebody please check whether portrait at bust length (Q241045) and bust (Q17489160) are the same object? Merge or separate more clearly. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Descriptions, statements, and even sitelinks are different, so I do not see how. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 00:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The subclass statements are pretty similar: they are both portrait sculptures. There's not much overlap in the sitelinks, although frwiki is connected to both. Ghouston (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The French article fr:Buste says the term can be used for a particular style of paintings (where the Google translation isn't good enough that I understand it). I think they've just combined two dissimilar (but related) concepts that share a word. Much as there's an alternative English meaning of the word, but en:Bust_(sculpture) is disambiguated. Most of the project links probably want bust (Q17489160). Ghouston (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
No need for Google translate when several editors already took the time to explain the difference. Somebody had changed one subclass statement, but the rest was clear. portrait at bust length (Q241045) refers to artworks in general, whereas bust (Q17489160) is limited to sculptures. That is why they are an instance of art genre (Q1792379) and genre of sculpture (Q18783400), as well as a subclasses of portrait (Q134307) and portrait sculpture (Q28777669), respectively. Again, it's always a good idea to take extra time checking the descriptions and statements, so no extra time is wasted. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Removing the "subclass sculpture" statement certainly helps, but it was hardly clear. portrait at bust length (Q241045) still has topic's main category = Category:Busts (sculpture) (which I'll fix) and the interwiki links are apparently confused. E.g., nl:Buste (kunst) is about sculpture (which I'll fix). The English label "bust" may be misleading because I don't think the word is normally used that way in English. Ghouston (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose two category items are needed because fr:Catégorie:Buste seems to have the expanded usage. Ghouston (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The term used on Commons for such paintings is "portraits at bust length", at c:Category:Portrait paintings at bust length. I don't think they would normally be called "busts". The Commons category c:Category:Portraits at bust length (which includes sculpture and paintings and photographs) can perhaps be linked with fr:Catégorie:Buste. Ghouston (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Basically concurring with Ghouston: a "bust" is necessarily a sculpture, but "at bust length" just refers to the portion of the body shown in a painting or photograph. - Jmabel (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Subclass for media professional (Q15980804)[edit]

Hello,

Would it be a good idea to have subclass like person (Q215627) or individual (Q795052) for media professional (Q15980804).

Looks like media professional (Q15980804) is a "dead end".

Thank you. Benoit Rochon (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No. In Wikidata, "media professional" is a profession, not a tyoe of human. There are 14 subclasses of media professional, all related professions. - PKM (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Echoing what PKM said - it looks like this is meant to be used with occupation (P106) rather than instance of (P31). e.g. and . More examples: [10]

Should podology (Q52862) and podiatry (Q18011356) be merged?[edit]

I've made a lot of research and haven't found big differences in meaning and definition between these terms. Many English dictionaries treat them as synonymous. The French article on Podologie is quite similar to the English one on Podiatry. Pinging مصعب, who has attempted a merger last year but was reverted. —capmo (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

hi. @Capmo:. during my studu as medical student i found that both terms are used interchangeably so that i tried to merge them. what's your opinion bro @علاء:. regards--مصعب (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that we have German articles for both we can't simple merge them.
When it comes to the description it seems that podiatry (Q18011356) includes the lower extremity while podology (Q52862) is about feet. ChristianKl❫ 17:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I also seems that in Germany to be a practioner of podology (Q52862) you don't need to have a medical degree as a doctor while podiatry (Q18011356) is a speciality of people who do have medical degrees. ChristianKl❫ 17:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
As I know that it's different from country to another, for example on Malta the podiatrist = podologist, but in other countries like Australia you study podology first, then specialise in podiatry. It's probably like psychology (Q9418) and psychiatry (Q7867). Also I found Cameron Kippen comment/2005, here and here --Alaa :)..! 21:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

diocese[edit]

Why "An entity with diocese (P708) should also have a statement religion (P140)." [11]? Maybe as a qualifier... Xaris333 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think they should have a religion (P140), If you are adding a "church" or "congregation" that belongs to a diocese, it must belong to a particular religion. That way someone can look up all the Lutheran churches vs. the Roman Catholic churches in a particular geographic area. --RAN (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Ok. But also a municipality belong to a diocese. Municipalities don't have a religion. Xaris333 (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The municipality should usually have a separate item. ChristianKl❫ 17:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: What do you mean? Xaris333 (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Municipality definetely does not belong to a diocese. They share some territory, but that's it. Dioceses are divided into deaneries, parishes etc., but let us not confuse state and church administrative divisions. I think we can link those two types of entities by adding located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to the church divisions. If you really have to, you could probably use located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607) the other way round, but my personal view is that P5607 should be used only for religious items, not state ones. Powerek38 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: So, Q349340#P708 is a wrong statement? Xaris333 (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Without being able to understand the relevant languages my impression ist: No, but Diocese of Limassol (Q16331837) should state the religion. ChristianKl❫ 17:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Now Diocese of Limassol (Q16331837) states the religion. But the problem is the constraint in Q349340#P708. Xaris333 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: that would be because diocese (P708) is intended strictly for church entities: parishes, churches etc. (which ought themselves have that property, hence the constraint). As pointed out by Powerek38 above, municipalities and other secular entities such as Yermasoyia (Q349340) are better off using located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607), as the relation is geographical, not administrative (the diocese has no administrative or similar power over the municipality). Circeus (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Circeus: So, is the correct statement? Xaris333 (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P708 there are 49162 violations. I check some, they are municipalities and other secular entities. Maybe users don't understand the use of diocese (P708) or don't know located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607). I had the same problem. Xaris333 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

SNCZI-IPE reservoir ID (P4568)[edit]

When following the formatted link, e.g. https://sig.mapama.es/93/ClienteWS/snczi/default.aspx?nombre=EMBALSE&claves=REF_CEH&valores=9843, I get an SEC_ERROR_UNKNOWN_ISSUER security error. How to deal with? I usually don't overrule these certificate errors. Can we unlink this property values until everything is proper again? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Internal server errors[edit]

I've been getting "500 internal server error" intermittently on OAUTH/QuickStatements login for the last several days, but today it's consistently failing. Anyone know what's up? - PKM (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

And of course it's back now. - PKM (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Same here - it seems to lose your WIDAR login state after some time, and then it takes 10 minutes or more to get back in. Has been happening for several days now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Same here. :/ --Marsupium (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #348[edit]

Duplicate items (scholarly articles)[edit]

Hi,

By chance I came across an apparent duplication of a Nature article. Q59066989 and Q57753530. The items are largely the same apart from identifiers; the former has a DOI and the latter PMID. They were both created by Quickstatements invoked by Source MD and only about a month apart. I suppose the two items need to be merged ?

Is it an isolated incident ? If not, how it can be prevented .

Kpjas (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I merged them. I doubt that it's the only such duplicate. They could be prevented by better checking for existing items when creating new ones: the duplicate was created in this instance by User:Sic19. Ghouston (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. Thanks for merging Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 23:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this[edit]

The other day on English WP I created an article on a rather obscure 19th century French operetta L'œil crevé [12]. Just now I got a notification "The page L'œil crevé was connected to the wikidata item Q60770728, which contains data relevant to the topic". So I look at that item "L'œil crevé (Q60770728)' [13] and it does not have any "data" whatsoever except it says the language is English, which is wrong, and that there is an article in English WP about it. This puzzles me, what is the point? I don't get it. Please do not suggest that I fill in any of the missing fields, I have no interest in editing anything in this project. I am simply baffled as to how this is meant to be of any possible use to anyone or anything, please explain.Smeat75 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smeat75: You don't have to do anything. Wikidata is an all-languages structured data wiki. If other people find it interesting they will add information, including translations and descriptions in other languages, and linking to other items - for example I added a link to the composer and a couple of other details. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Smeat75: And I've added links to records at the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the US Library of Congress, which will allow individuals to locate copies of the score and libretto in either library. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, OK, that's better I guess. Thanks.Smeat75 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Filed phab:T214355 to improve wording of the message. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I too am confused. I just wrote an article, Sánchez Navarro latifundio [14] for Wikipedia and was notified that it was put on wikidata. Should I be pleased about this? Is it a compliment to the luminance of my labors? Or are wikipedia articles routinely put on wikidata? Is there something I could or should be doing for wikidata? Just curious. Smallchief. 45.36.21.110 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Almost every Wikipedia article is associated with a Wikidata item. This enables, among other things, the links between articles in different languages about the same topic. The data can also be used by Wikidata articles through the Scribunto/parser functions, for example in external link templates and infoboxes.
For new articles specifically, Special:UnconnectedPages on each wiki lists articles which are not yet connected to Wikidata. Users might use that list – or use software like PetScan to e.g. go through the categories on each wiki – to manually or semi-automatically select pages for which to create associated Wikidata items. Jc86035 (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a question for enWP - if it is "obscure" why is there an article about it? WP doesn't like obscure, they like notable. Lazypub (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Well it is notable in the history of French opéra bouffe, certainly, although that whole topic could be considered "rather obscure" in comparison to many others.Smeat75 (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

JAnDBot Wikisource category creations[edit]

It seems JAnDbot is creating data items for all categories on English Wikisource, whether or not these categories apply anywhere else. I thought we'd agreed not to do so for Commons (or has that changed?) If we're not doing it for Commons, then why do it for Wikisource?

Most of these categories will have no equivalent on any other project ever.

For example:

Will data items for any of these (or their many similar data items) be of any use whatsoever? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

For example, in cs.wikisource exists some translated articles from EB1911, so similar category might exist in future. There are many categories from various projects which have no equivalent in different project.
And second problem - some of categories have equivalent, but are not connected yet, some not. And nobody can recognize if exist or not, when are stored somewhere in local project, not in Wikidata.
But I stopped creation for now. JAn Dudík (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
From what I saw on a brief inspection, fewer than 1 in 100 of these categories will have a possible equivalent anywhere else. It would make more sense to prepare a batch list and ask people to identify the ones that can be matched to existing data items, instead of creating thousands of unattached data items, most of which will be of no value and have no possible connections. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, they don't seem very useful. I tried to change the Notability policy a while ago, to remove the explicit reference to Commons and replace it a more generic principle: that category items should only be created if a) they have two sitelinks, or b) there's one sitelink but it's linked with a main item. It didn't get anywhere though. Ghouston (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking through the bot edits (see JAnDbot (talkcontribslogs)), a lot of them look like useful links to me that easily meet notability (you've cherry-picked your examples here). However, there doesn't seem to be adequate duplicate checking, for example Q60773447 is the same as Category:Prime Ministers of Canada (Q9054940), and that could be improved. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    Hardly "cherry-picked". I only posted after the Bot created more than 100 data items for categories for articles from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. The more recent edits appear to have been checked against Wikipedia categories (although apparently not checked against Commons). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Author name string[edit]

We use "author name string" when we do not have a Wikidata entry for an author. When I add an entry for an author, should I delete the field for "author name string"? See Decoding an Ancient Computer (Q55922387) --RAN (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not be fooled. Author name string is always used by mass imports (i.e. of BHL, or articles...) even if there is a clear, unambiguous match on wikidata. Circeus (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Is that an answer to the quesiton? I delete them, since they seem redundant. I put the value in a stated as (P1932) qualifier, although I've noticed that these author name strings, taken from databases, often don't match how they are written in the original article. Ghouston (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's so easy to match authors. Maybe there's only one "John Smith" in Wikidata, but that doesn't mean the "John Smith" in the article you are importing is the same guy. Well, I checked and there are already multiple John Smiths, which just makes it even harder. Ghouston (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
They should be replaced by the correct item, if it exists, then deleted. At least that's what I always do. Circeus (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
But is that correct practice? For example for use in citation templates it is very useful to have original "author name string", as we are interested in both author (P50) (to link author article/item) and author name string (P2093) (to show actual author string, it may be pseudonym maiden name etc.--Jklamo (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Skim (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
It is common practice to delete the property and add the information to the stated as (P1932) as a qualifier under author (P50). This is what https://tools.wmflabs.org/author-disambiguator/ does. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Also when the "author name string" is there Scholia regards the author as "missing", see, e.g., https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/author/Q97270/missingFinn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, if was bad practice to delete the author name strings, we should also be adding them when they are missing. It would be an easy bot task to derive them from the author. I'm not convinced it would be useful though. Ghouston (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I came here from the WikiProject Source Metadata ping. I delete "author name string" when we have the same information in "author". Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am now using tools.wmflabs.org/author-disambiguator/ almost exclusively to do this work. It uses QuickStatements to add author qualified with "stated as" the original string, preserve the series ordinal number, and remove the author name string. (Example results at A Review of Periodical Literature on Textile History Published in 1974 (Q58342779).) But you still must determine that this particular "J. D. Smith" author name string is the same as the "John David Smith" you are matching to. I use a combination of the author's bibliography, the journal published in, the co-authors, the article itself, and the subject matter to determine this. (I admit I have it comparatively easy, working with textie and costume historians.)- PKM (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Hoi, from someone who uses the "sourcemd" tool a lot, yes, publications are created with "author strings" only. In a second run known authors are added and the author strings are replaced. Having both "author" and "author string" is bad news. Typically the strings used in the publication can be found in a qualifier. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be cool when for every paper without an author a sourcemd process is started to add the authors. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Can someone help fix the Wikidata Tours?[edit]

Hi all

The Wikidata:Tours are a very valuable tool for beginners to start learning Wikidata (and could also be used to explain more complicated things as well) Unfortunately there is an error causing many of the Wikidata to be non functional so they cannot be published. Please can someone take a look at the code and try and find the error?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Smaller media franchises[edit]

How are they intended to be structured? Take Long Riders! (Q19829609) as a random example. It has a manga and an anime combined into one entry (currently incomplete). Should they be separated? Most of these franchises are currently combined entries, so are they technically all wrong? Should there also be a separate entry for the franchise itself? Assuming it was split, which entry is supposed to get the Wikipedia links, the original or the most notable? This might all be covered in an FAQ somewhere but I couldn't find it. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Xezbeth: The manga and anime should definitely be separate items (since they're different creative works), and maybe the franchise could receive its own item as well. I'm guessing that if the first sentence of the article says "Long Riders! is a manga …" then the sitelink should be on the item for the manga, and vice versa, although it might alternately be appropriate to link all such pages to the franchise item regardless of what each article's introduction says it's about. The most recent project chat discussion was in September. I personally think Wikidata tends to lack sufficient documentation for most things. Jc86035 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Ski resort AND Town/Mountain[edit]

I asked this recently at Wikiproject Sport, but received no reaction. I'd just like a 'second opinion' on my approach, please.
I recently successfully proposed the creation of Skiresort.info ID (P6389), our first ID property relating to ski resort (Q130003). I'm now trying to clean up the existing items before creating new items based on the missing-matches from that Property.
As you can see at THIS QUERY there are about 100 items which are BOTH 'instance of' ski resort (Q130003) AND a subclass of human settlement (Q486972) (town, village, commune...) Equally, at THIS QUERY, you see there are a dozen items which are both 'instance of' ski resort (Q130003) AND a subclass of geomorphological unit (Q12766313) (mountain pass, hill, mountain, valley...)
To me this seems inaccurate... The instance of (P31) of items all seem to be generated via Wikipedia import. In Wikipedia it is natural and normal to write an article that discusses the [otherwise insignificant] hill, the [tiny] town, and its associated ski-field all together in one page. But I feel like town/mountain/ski-resort should be split into different things on WD. For example here's a single WD item Plateau de Beille (Q764281) whose Wikipedia articles talks about the geology, the Tour de France cycling stages, the ski-resort... (English WP, French WP).
Therefore, I am working my way through these above queries manually, and deciding on a case-by-case basis how best to separate the information and items between Ski Resort, Town, and Mountain. Sometimes the existing metadata and inbound sitelinks are more relevant to the former, sometimes to the latter, sometimes mixed (hence the manual approach). For example, here's an mountain/ski-resort in Finland that I recently split into two items (Levi (Q262837) and Levi (Q60806057)) where I determined that the inbound sitelinks were primarily talking about the ski-resort so I broke-off the Properties relating specifically to the hill into a new item. In other cases it's the reverse...
Does this all sound right to you? Wittylama (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's how I've been tackling items like Native Anerican tribes and their reservations, lighthouses and the islands they sit on, and recreation areas/lakes. In your case, I'd use "located on terrain feature"/"located in the administrative territorial entity" to link them together. Alternatively, you can make "parent" items tagged as <instance of> Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471) with "has parts" of the town, resort, and mountain, which lets you keep all the interwiki links together. - PKM (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you PKM for that reassurance :-) Yes, I'm using located on terrain feature (P706) to indicate the relationship of the ski-resort to the hill, but I've not found an appropriate way to indicate the reverse (i.e. how to say on the item about the hill that there's a ski-resort on top of it?). Equally, both the town and the ski-resort should have the same located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statement but I've not found a way to indicate the relationship between each (except sometimes I use different from (P1889) when the name of the town and the ski-resort are the same). Any suggestions (apart from <instance of> Wikipedia article covering multiple topics (Q21484471), which is a new item I'd not seen before but I think will come in very handy in some cases like when the ski-resort stretches across multiple towns, notably w:en:Portes du Soleil.) Wittylama (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Connection between wiki (Q171) and wiki software (Q6686945)[edit]

At the moment, these two items are only linked by different from (P1889). We don't actually show the connection between them. The connection is also lacking between website (Q35127) and web server (Q11288). What is the best property to express this relation? uses (P2283)? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC) PS. I note the existence of software engine (P408), but that seems to be intended to point to specific software engines, not type of software. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

software engine (P408) is permitted on websites, according to constraints. It's used on Wikipedia (Q52). wiki (Q171) vs wiki software (Q6686945) seems like an abstract version of that. uses (P2283) also seems OK, in a less specific way. Ghouston (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge 2x Andreae, Samuel Traugott[edit]

Q55133437 = Q55122657 78.55.96.228 18:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. 78.55.96.228 22:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Property "text on commons"[edit]

Is there no property to link a file with a text to the item of the text? Or did I just not found it? image (P18) could be used to do this but I think it should not. --GPSLeo (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

scanned file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) ? Jheald (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Good for old scanned texts but for a native PDF like a law or ordinance text? --GPSLeo (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I think you could use it for that. full work available at (P953) is also possible. Jheald (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes but it is a URL datatype and not a Commons media file datatype. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Why does the article appear to have a subtitle but no Wikidata page?[edit]

The article w:Native American ethnobotany appears on the Wikipedia mobile app with the subtitle "Medicinal plantç" [sic]. This is while there does not exist a Wikidata page associated with the page, as seen here, where is this subtitle likely coming from, I'm assuming from somewhere on Wikidata? The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@The Editor's Apprentice: I have made some improvements to Native American ethnobotany (Q6806679) which should help. You could not find the page in your search because you were looking for the Wikipedia page title which, rightly or wrongly, does not seem to be indexed for search. Bovlb (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for improving the page. If you don't mind me asking how did you find the page yourself, and how is a page marked not to be indexed for search? The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm guessing the answer is, the item's labels, descriptions and aliases are indexed, but the sitelink names are not indexed. And in this case, "Native American ethnobotany" did not appear in any of the labels, descriptions nor aliases, but only in the sitelink. The en article has been linked to the wikidata item since 2013. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem with your search was that you wrote "American Native ethnobotany" instead of "Native American ethnobotany". By the way, sitelinks are indexed but this isn't related to ItemByTitle. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The easy way is to use the "Wikidata item" link on the left side of the Wikipedia page, desktop version. Ghouston (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Only if "Open link in new tab" is used. - Brya (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Awesome, that you both for the information. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 15:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How to model Wikimedians in Residence on Wikidata?[edit]

Hi all

There's a big long (and most probably incomplete) list of Wikimedians in Residence on Outreach Wiki here. What do you think is the best way of modelling this on Wikidata?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing has already mapped this out on his own item Andy Mabbett (Q15136093) quite extensively. So that'd be a good guide. Wittylama (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Wittylama: :) --John Cummings (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)