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

# Wikidata:Project chat

 Wikidata project chatPlace 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 Wikidata Telegram group Start a new discussion
 On this page, old discussions are archived after 7 days. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2020/07.

## Web of Sciences Qualifier

(This discussion is moved from Wikidata:Request a query)

Hey,

am I correct that there is no such thing like a qualifier for Web of Science-*publication*-ID in Wikidata? I found WOS-ResearcherID (P1053) but nothing for WOSUID.

Thank you!

-Eva (talk)

@EvaSeidlmayer: there isn't a property for it now, though there is an open proposal to create one, so it's likely to be created soon. Vahurzpu (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Eva FYI, I was thinking about it, I might do it myself in few months f it is a solid ID. (I had no time to check it carefully)--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

## Preferred Rank for P31

During a discussion of a SPARQL query the question came up whether P31 should have "Preferred Rank" or not. We found a few instances such as Cremin (Q57119) which has preferred rank locality (Q3257686) and normal rank municipality of Switzerland (Q70208). It is not clear to me why should one be more important than the other? There fore I would like to ask whether there a consensus regarding the use of "Preferred rank" for instance of (P31)? Should this be used if there is a clear primary meaning of an item? Does this help external tools to reason about the item? What do you think? Best regards --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are cases where external tools and data-users want to have a truthy answer for "What's the instance of (P31) of an item?" Setting the "Preferred rank" helps to provide the best answer to the query. Generally we don't want truthy answer for questions to provide answers that aren't true in the moment the query is made. Today, Cremin (Q57119) isn't a municipality of Switzerland and thus it's better when the truthy answer is that it's a locality. ChristianKl❫ 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes I see that point, but it it is difficult to say what is really the "best truth" here. It may just as well be a truthy answer to say that Cremin (Q57119) is a former municipality of Switzerland (Q685309) (and may even provide more information) since that implies that its a locality but also provides information that it used to be a municipality. I just wanted to get a general opinion on whether P31 should have a preferred rank at all or not. I can see instances where it makes sense to describe an item that is well known for quality A as "preferred" when it has a less well known quality B. Eg Geneva (Q71) is described as "city in Switzerland and capital of its canton" and for automatic tools to provide the same answer, it should have preferred rank city of Switzerland (Q54935504) and cantonal capital of Switzerland (Q14770218) while the other P31 of college town and municipality of Switzerland should be less important. Btw: is it possible to set two "preferred ranks" as in this case? --Hannes Röst (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Truthy answers to questions always give one or zero answers and strip away qualifiers.
The concept of ranks is quite central and not using it for instance of (P31) would give the orders in which statements affect queries in a way that's hard to understand to users. It's possible to set multiple preferred ranks but the truthy value is still not both results but the first. Having only one value with the preferred rank makes it easier to understand what's likely returned by a query.
former municipality of Switzerland (Q685309) is a bit internally contradictory given that it subclasses municipality of Switzerland (Q70208). I think there are good reasons against relying in "former X"-items for instance of (P31) claims. ChristianKl❫ 19:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it's not true that truthy queries only bring back at most one result: they bring back all the results at the highest rank. See, for example,
SELECT ?location ?locationLabel WHERE {
wd:Q42442324 wdt:P276 ?location.
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!
This currently gives three results. --Oravrattas (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It does seem that I remember it wrongly. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing/RDF_Dump_Format#Truthy_statements seems to be the actual definition. ChristianKl❫ 21:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think in a lot of cases it's better to create a new item when something changes so much that's it's no longer an instance of one thing, but something else. A separate item for the former municipality, in this case. The place itself would have start and end dates and ranks on its located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements. Ghouston (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• I think normally that all values of P31 should have normal rank. Yes, Geneva (Q71) is a cantonal capital of Switzerland (Q14770218) and city of Switzerland (Q54935504), but that doesn't make is less trues that it is also e.g. a big city (Q1549591) so best rank searches for Q1549591 should in my opinion return Q71 which setting the former values to preferred rank would prevent. If an item is dissolved or otherwise not in use, I think that should be expressed with qualifiers like end time (P582) and not ranking. When Help:Ranking says "The preferred rank is assigned to the most current statement" I would interpret that to give the current number of inhabitants, the current mayor etc. preferred rank. I would not give preferred rank to the statement "Essert-Pittet (Q68715) P31 locality (Q3257686)" as it has now. That the item was once was a Swiss commune is much specific than it being a Q3257686. In fact I would prefer to remove the statement with Q3257686, as I don't see any point in having that when we have a more specific and thus better definition. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Having multiple P31 statements is often a warning sign that some of these should be on other properties — e.g we currently have almost 400 occasions of instance of (P31):capital (Q5119), which would be better using capital of (P1376) instead — but I agree that where something does legitimately have multiple P31 statements, it should be rare for one of them to be Preferred. I agree with your reading of Help:Ranking, and think it's worth tweaking or expanding that to make a few scenarios more clear. --Oravrattas (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Often this is a problem, but not always. I think Geneva (Q71) is a good example of being multiple things and we often see this in articles where the village and the political entity (municipality) have a single entry and also a single Wikipedia article. And I tend to agree that probably using Ranks for P31 is generally a bad idea since the Ranking systems seems to be used for cases where there are multiple entries and one of them is clearly the most up to date and truly correct one while for P31 that is almost never the case that one "instance-of" is more recent/more true than another. It seems the situation for P31 is like the children of Barack Obama, neither one is more correct than the other. This link also seems to indicate that correct historic information should not be indicated with rank: This does not apply to correct historical information, such as previous values of a statement, as long as they represent accurate information for the indicated time period. Such statements should instead be annotated with the appropriate start time (P580)/end time (P582) qualifiers. I would agree that a clarification in Help:Ranking would be a good idea. --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
PS: due to the aforementioned issues with villages and political structures, I dont think that locality (Q3257686) should be removed from Essert-Pittet (Q68715) since municipality of Switzerland (Q70208) is orthogonal to being a village: sometimes a municipality contains multiple villages and we therefore cannot assume that municipality of Switzerland (Q70208) *implies* locality (Q3257686) necessarily. --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Add Scopus and other IDs from ORCID

Similar to this request from a few months ago, could we maybe also have Scopus Author ID (P1153), ResearcherID (P1053) (and potentially others) added by a bot from an individual's ORCID iD (P496)? These IDs are often listed in a person's ORCID, such as here for Peter F. Orazem (Q30071694). --Bender235 (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We should. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
According to this FAQ page on ORCID, it seems they allow for the inclusion of Authenticus ID (P7834), Ciência ID (P7893), Dialnet author ID (P1607), GitHub username (P2037), and Loop ID (P2798), in addition to the ones mentioned above. It would be great if we could have a bot scraping all of these. --Bender235 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to specify that sidewalk (Q177749) is adjacent to road (Q34442). I can't find a property to use, though; shares border with (P47) seems to apply only to countries, and I'm not sure how I'd use adjacency (Q78532896) since it's not a property. Help? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

connects with (P2789) is a general property that can be used, but I'm not sure that this is how roads work. My instinct would be that a sidewalk is part of a road and EnWiki seems also not to think that sidewalk are adjacent to roads but part of roads. ChristianKl❫ 00:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Typically a part of a street (Q79007), which is an urban road (Q34442). part of (P361) could be used, although the lack of symmetry always bothers me on such classes: maybe a sidewalk (Q177749) is always part of a street (Q79007), but a street (Q79007) doesn't necessarily have a sidewalk (Q177749). Ghouston (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, "typically" part of a street (Q79007), but I can think of a case where a highway has one. Ghouston (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I added it as has parts of the class (P2670) sidewalk (Q177749) quantity (P1114) 1±1. 1±1 doesn't read as user-friedly and it might be nicer if the UI would display it as 0-2 but it does note the information. ChristianKl❫ 11:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You need to be careful here with international usage. While the USA uses "sidewalk" with the implication of it being on the side of a street, the international aliases are pavement, footpath or footway. In the UK those may be part of the same highway as a street or road or they can be an independent highway for foot traffic that meanders away from the flow of vehicles. I haven't looked into how these are modelled here but we may need to split the items based on national usage if you want to be creative with the supporting properties. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Whereas in the U.S., a "footpath" is specifically not along a street: anything from a separate path a few meters from the street and parallel to it, to a path in a park, or even sometimes a hiking trail. - Jmabel (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Word usage isn't primary. Relationships between items in Wikidata are more important. There are items that are instance of (P31) sidewalk (Q177749) and we care about what those describe. It would be nice if someone models the different entities and conceptions that exists. Afterwards we can decide on what the best names for them happen to be. ChristianKl❫ 20:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, but you need to make sure the model matches the situation before you start playing around with specialised properties. If an item represents X and Y but an editor comes along and sets properties for X only then all the links to that item expecting Y will now be wrong. If you want to create an instance solely for X then create a new item for it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear, at least in English, from the label (which is apparently reasonably unambiguous in American English), the description and the linked enwiki article. Footpaths have been difficult at Commons, due to English language usage variations; some time ago some categories were merged into c:Category:Paths, and Category:Footpaths is now a redirect to that. The items path (Q5004679) and footpath (Q3352369) are apparently duplicates, but the usage on eswiki needs investigation. Ghouston (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there are errors that come from saying that any road has 0-2 sidewalks given that 0 happens to be in the range. ChristianKl❫ 11:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

## Why am I getting the warning at Q96118741

Why at Portrait Dr. Ernst Schwerin (1846-1920) (Q96118741) is the image field giving me a warning? --RAN (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the word "carte" is triggering a constraint in French for "carte de localisation." Basically, the system thinks you have used a map so is trying to tell you to use locator map image (P242) instead. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Ahhhh, thanks! I will change the name of the image file. --RAN (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) In general, it's not a good idea to change file names for the sole sake of appeasing the fickle gods of Wikidata. Commons:File renaming discusses valid reasons. If Wikidata has a problem with a single word in a single language, that's a problem best solved on Wikidata's end, not Commons. -Animalparty (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Just add another exception to the constraint on image (P18). However, it's accumulating so many exceptions that the value of the constraint has to be questioned. Ghouston (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

## Wikidata Vandalism Dashboard

I don't know where I can report this, there is no info anywhere who's the author or where problems should be reported, so I'm posting it here. It's a problem with Wikidata Vandalism Dashboard. For some reason 'Entity title' column does not function properly, the whole column is empty. Wostr (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Wostr: Hey, User:Lucas Werkmeister and I maintain this code. I just tried it with this url and it works fine for me. Can you elaborate more on which URL you see the issue? Amir (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: okay, I see now that it doesn't work with &limit= in the url > 50. I always had the limit set to greater value than 50. Wostr (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Wostr: this commit fixes the issue. Let me know if you encounter more issues. Amir (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

## Changing format of ISNI values

I've proposed to change the format in which ISNI (P213) values are stored from display format (= with spaces) to storage format (= without spaces). Please write your opinion here. Thanks, --Epìdosis 00:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please do the same for ISBN values, Google uses no dashes, we use dashes, and eventually a bot adds in the dashes. --RAN (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

## term length of office

Hello. How can I add the information that the term length of office (P2097) of Attorney General of Cyprus Republic (Q19241145) is until the age of the retirement of the person? (Until the 68th birthday of the person in that case). Xaris333 (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas? Xaris333 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You could use it with unknown value and a determination method (P459) qualifier saying "mandatory retirement age" or similar? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## The position replaces another position

Is there a diverse inverse of substitute/deputy/replacement of office/officeholder (P2098)? Or something else to show the information.

Xaris333 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Any ideas? Xaris333 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Propert for Judged by

Does anyone know about a property for Judged by within judiciary (Q105985)? Pmt (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

## P7859

I tryied to add WorldCat Identities ID (P7859) to Jacob Chanai (Q96654298) but it was unsuccessful. I have this. I could not understand what should be correct viaf-233939274 not working and also np-... Can someone help. Geagea (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geagea: What is the actual value that you need to add? Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
That's the point. I don't know. I tried "viaf-" and "np-" but was not successful. Geagea (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's added mostly by bot when one exists. --- Jura 18:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that in Wikidata, the property Worldcat Entities ID is accessed using the domain/url https://www.worldcat.org/identities/. But for this item, the ID is actually present in the domain/url http://experiment.worldcat.org/entity/work/data/. This is what is creating the problem. I have asked to owners of website, about whether they can provide an id with the needed domain, don't know whether it's possible. If it's not, I think the regex given for the field needs to be modified. Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

## Entity classification with P31

I've been wondering about this for a while and am not sure if there are other situations where this comes up.

In the UK hills are often given somewhat "arbitrary" classifications based on various features (height, drop and region typically) as decided by various hillwalkers/organisations (all well documented - such as Munro (Q1320721)). Currently in Wikidata this is reflected using instance of (P31), see Ben Nevis (Q104674) for example. You can find some basic documentation of the most well known in Scotland on my user page.

Does this seem like the correct way to capture these classifications? It feels a little iffy to me, but I struggle to distinguish why exactly. It means that if classifications exist which aren't related through a class hierarchy (most of them aren't) then an item can arbitrarily be an "instance of" many - none of which feel the same as saying it's an instance of a mountain. Any thoughts? --SilentSpike (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• As a follow up point, I would add that I've considered these could be modelled inversely (a property on the classification item specifying a query to return all items to which it applies). However, this seems non-trivial for cases (e.g. Wainwright (Q62082131) or Munros which must be regarded by the Scottish Mountaineering Club as distinct and separate mountains) where the classification includes more arbitrary points and not factual information about the entity which would be stored in Wikidata. --SilentSpike (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be more inclined to link these via list of Munro mountains in Scotland (Q57206191), list of Murdo mountains in Scotland (Q57199768), etc, perhaps using member of (P463), though there may be a more appropriate property. I think the key thing is that these are part of one or more named groups of mountains, rather than this being a true instance of (P31) relationship.--Oravrattas (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oh, Munro the band .. --- Jura 22:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
• If there is a clear definition for munro, it might work in P31, but these might end up being "hills" or "mountains" as well.
In general, I think more basic items work better in P31 (e.g. just Q5).
As mentioned, using a separate property could work better for more complex descriptions. [P463 is likely not the one though nor would lists generally include all items they "list"]. --- Jura 09:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to see these treated as a classification system (Q5962346). We would need:
1. a new item for "United Kingdom hill classification system" <has parts of the class> "United Kingdom hill class"
2. a new item for "United Kingdom hill class" <part of> "United Kingdom hill classification system"
3. Munro (Q1320721), Simm (Q26709966), etc., would then become <instance of > "United Kingdom hill class" rather than just class (Q16889133)
4. Once everything is in place, propose a new property "United Kingdom hill class" and use that property rather than P31.
We have a great many properties for fairly specific classification systems already (see search results). - PKM (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• I like the idea of using this as a classification scheme in a specific property (as @PKM: suggests) rather than using instance of (P31) - in general we try and keep this sort of thing in properties other than P31. Maybe a more generic "classification by size" property would be good, rather than one limited to hill classes, though? It feels like it might be useful in general; eg we could consider using it for the various classifications of cities by size, which are also sometimes challenged as not quite right in P31. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• @PKM, Andrew Gray: Yes I also like this idea and am considering whether it can be generalised further (or whether we want to - because you could then end up in a situation where there can be statements grouped together mixing multiple systems). The other thing is I'm not entirely sure there's a formalised "UK hill classification system" so much as just informal designations which have become popular and don't really fall under one system. --SilentSpike (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

## Czech and Arabic help needed -- for error fixing

Somehow, at one point, the items for the travel writer Charles H. Baker / James Baker (Q5078504) and the American politician Charles H. Baker (Q96693981) got merged. I just finished separating them out, but meanwhile, the conflation has been around long enough to have propagated all over the place :-{ I've sent correction notifications to everyone I could; but it would be good to have a Czech speaker to notify Národní autority ČR, BDČZ, Obalky Knih, and Archiv výtvarného umění (one of the less obvious errors in those is stating that he resided in and died in Clifton, Kentucky, USA when in fact it was Clifton, Bristol, UK). Also could an Arabic speaker please fix arzWiki. Since it's Wikidata's fault in the first place ... Levana Taylor (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Help:Conflation of two persons might help you sort it out. --- Jura 08:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• No, I'vegoto it sorted. I'd just like someone to find the contact links on the Czech sites ant let them know that they copied incorrect information from WD, and to clean up arzWiki which I think has info from both also. Levana Taylor (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is not really what Help:Conflation of two persons suggests. Especially, it should be possible to fix conflations at Wikidata without speaking Czech and Arabic.
Also, if Q5078504 is a conflation, it shouldn't become an item about an individual. --- Jura 09:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@Meno25: for arzwiki point --Alaa :)..! 10:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Q5078504 was originally Charles, and linked two Wikipedia articles, until a bot added an identifier for James, and other bots added identifiers based on that. Peter James (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Current status: Charles H. Baker / James Baker (Q5078504) is a conflation item containing identifiers for ISNI and the four Czech sites; Charles H. Baker (Q96693981) is Charles H. Baker; James Baker (Q88218745) is James Baker. Levana Taylor (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The abART person ID (P6844) is only about James Baker, the only error I can see is the wrong Clifton. BHCL ID (P6656) is also James, with the exception of the image and link to the NKCR AUT ID (P691) conflation. Peter James (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks much better. Thanks for fixing it! --- Jura 09:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Revision of Alexander-Briggs notation property

There is a huge mess-up with the Alexander–Briggs notation (P6432) property in the range 10_161 to 10_166, for historical reasons.

This is because of an error in all tables up to Rolfsen's resulted in one knot being listed twice, in forms known as 10_161 and 10_162, prior to being identified as being the same knot. This is where it gets nasty. Some authorities just omitted the knot 10_162, but others renumbered 10_163 to 10_166 into the range 10_162 to 10_165. This has led to enduring confusion, made worse by occasional attempts to fix the problem that pile one mistake on the other. See http://katlas.org/wiki/The_Rolfsen_Knot_Table and w:Perko pair for more information.

This means that all Alexander-Briggs notations in the range 10_162 - 10_166 (and only those) are now ambiguous, and without information as to the source, worse than useless as knot identifiers.

As part of my knot consolidation project, I now propose to add a qualifier to the Alexander-Briggs name property on Wikidata, to try to ensure that we don't propagate this any more. I propose to add the string " (Rolfsen original)" to refer to the original names in the range 10_162 - 10_166, and " (re-numbered)" to the new, re-numbered names in the range 10_162 - 10_165. Please note that the Alexander-Briggs notation for all other knot articles will remain the same as before, without any suffix, since none of them need any disambiguation.

This will require a change to the property's regex, and the editing of five knot items to add the new, tagged forms of the names, which diverge for those particular knots.

The old regex is:

[0-9]+(\^([0-9]|{[0-9]+})?_([0-9]|{[0-9]+})


and my proposed new regex is:

[0-9]+(\^([0-9]|{[0-9]+})?_([0-9]|{[0-9]+})(?:| $$Rolfsen original$$| $$re-numbered$$)


Does this seem OK to people? Notified participants of WikiProject Mathematics -- The Anome (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Could you add a few sample values this is meant to match? I'm not sure what { } in there will match.
Literal text in tex/math would generally be ${\displaystyle {\text{blabla}}}$ written \text{blabla}. However, if there are just different criteria to determine an expression, one would generally use a qualifier for that. --- Jura 13:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. And you're absolutely right, I hadn't thought the markup through.

That would then make the new regex this:

[0-9]+(\^([0-9]|{[0-9]+})?_([0-9]|{[0-9]+})(?:| \\text\{$$Rolfsen original$$\}| \\text\{$$re-numbered$$\})


which is truly horrible.

Trying again:

• Unaltered: ${\displaystyle 0_{1}}$, ${\displaystyle 7_{4}}$, ${\displaystyle 10_{120}}$
• Rolfsen: ${\displaystyle 10_{162}{\text{(Rolfsen original)}}}$
• Renumbered: ${\displaystyle 10_{162}{\text{(re-numbered)}}}$

Yes, I've thought of using qualifiers. The problem is that there are so many different sources, and everything gets fuzzy once you've gone beyond the original printed Rolfsen tables. Even online sources calling themselves the Rolfsen tables can contain either numbering. From my perspective, the Alexander-Briggs symbols from 10_162 to 10_166 are basically meaningless, and other unambiguous identifiers such as the Dowker-Thistlethwaite names need to be used instead, or appeal to invariants, which can be more difficult than it seems due to multiple different ways to write the invariants themselves.

Having two different properties, Alexander-Briggs notation (Rolfsen original) and Alexander-Briggs notation (re-numbered) might be another way of doing it, but also seems inelegant.

Maybe Help:Deprecation is the way to go? -- The Anome (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I'd also make the regex something like this:

[0-9]+(\^([0-9]|{[0-9]+})?_([0-9]|{[0-9]+})( \\text\{$$[-A-Za-z ]$$\})?


to allow other tags to be added if necessary, without further overhead. The alternative is a nest of multiple statements with different cites, qualifiers and deprecation annotations; I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. -- The Anome (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• This "Rolfsen original" and "re-numbered" should probably be qualifiers: 1) they are not part of identifier; 2) they are language-dependent. But I do not know which qualifier to use: "knot smth" "Alexander-Briggs notation" "10_163" "???" "original Alexander-Briggs notation". Isn't there a necessary property for this qualifier? Something like applies to part (P518) Wikisaurus (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• This is why I'm a bit perplexed. The A-B notation is arbitrary, as it's based on the order that various knot tablulators originally wrote these knots into their tables. But at least they were unambiguous. Even when the Perko pair was found, that didn't really break the system. But the resulting mess from the various efforts to try to fix it has made the A-B notation almost useless -- but for only six knots! For everything else, it's still a useful system, at least up to the limits of the older tables. I'm working on adding the D-T names to Wikidata, which should at least give us a systematically derived unique key for these entries, and is extensible to all knots, known or future. But I'd like at least to clear the A-B notation mess up whild I'm tidying the rest of the knot properties. (See my property proposal Wikidata:Property proposal/Dowker-Thistlethwaite name.)

I'm now inclining more to using qualifiers and references, since it is only six knots, and if I use the "deprecated" and "conflation" qualifiers, together with lots of cites, that might be enough. -- The Anome (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• If P6432 was an identifier, this would definetly need to be a qualifier. However, if it's just a way to describe the knot, including it in one way or the other in the string itself doesn't seem problematic to me. As it's about knots, I can't really tell ;) --- Jura 09:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Link a item to a paragraph

Hello,

at the moment I try to get a overview about Wikisource and think about sources and how it can be easier to find a topic. There are some projects where for different parts are not extra pages. This is a Example. The page includes different song texts. How is it possible to show that the Text in Wikisource exists. Usually there are Interwikilinks but that is not possible if there are several topics mentioned at one page. --Hogü-456 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• In Wikisource, is it possible to create a redirect that uses a fragment identifier to get the individual song? - Jmabel (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Duplicate children

I have been noticing duplicate children in many of the genealogical trees generated at Commons, and find the error comes from Wikidata. Some people are listed twice as a child because of them also appearing in The Peerage. The problem is that after merging duplicates they still appear later as a duplicate as child= at each parent. One entry links to the redirect and the other is the record that survived the merge, is a bot supposed to be removing the duplicate after merger? --RAN (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This was done by User:KrBot, but currently blocked.--GZWDer (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot was unblocked yesterday (link), so there's a good chance this will start up again soon. Vahurzpu (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## How to sync a WIkidata query to a Google Sheet?

Hi all

There are a lot of amazing data visualisation websites and pieces of software which can sync to data from Google Sheets, they're able to fetch the data from the Sheet so the visualisation stays up to date. . In the example of Carto if the Google Sheet changes the Carto map changes. I created this map of GLAMs around the world which links to the Wikidata item, (the colour is based on when the data was added to Wikidata.

Currently the only way I'm aware of being able to do this is to run a query, download the .csv and upload that to Google Docs which then syncs to the software.

1. Run query
4. Carto map syncs to Google Sheet

My question is is there a way of syncing the query to the Google Sheet so the who process was automated, including any new items that appeared in the sheet? This would mean the process would be:

1. Query runs
2. New query results replace the old ones on the Google Sheet
3. Carto uses the Google Sheet to update the map

Also if this was possible what would be the best ways of doing it

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I have created a google sheet for fetching any updates that has been made in Wikidata. I have also made it automate and it will check any updates in every 10 minutes interval and update if there is a change. Here is the link of that google sheet created for fetching COVID-19 updates in India.--❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gnoeee: this is really amazing, thanks so much, myself and @NavinoEvans: will go through it and work out how its done and write up some instructions for others to use. Would it be ok to come back to you with questions? --John Cummings (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: Yup sure. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be happy to help :) -❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 12:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gnoeee: could I ask you to explain how it works, the different parts of it, what to read to learn how to get each part working etc? I'm going to put together a guide with Nav on how to do this kind of thing but first we need to learn ourselves :) Thanks very much --John Cummings (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I have added a new sheet, 'Documentation' in the GSheet that induces the work to be done to get the clean result. I have also added comments to each steps that will be useful for creating a new sheet similar. Ping me if any questions. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ JinOy ❚❙❚❙❙ 20:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## Books from the Biodiversity Heritage Library

A mass upload of books from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, to Commons, is underway. Please assist in categorising them, and linking them or their categories to Wikidata items. They may also be useful as a source of illustrations, for species and other subjects, where we currently have no image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Are the pdfs being systematically linked from Wikidata? Jheald (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Not that I'm aware of. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Estate appraiser and consultant

I am trying to find two items. I have translate the Greek words of my source. The translations are:

• real estate consultant
• real estate appraiser

Do you know if we have items for them? I have found

but I don't know if are the same (I think they are not the same)

Xaris333 (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging by enwiki articles, real estate broker (Q519076) may be about estate agents / brokers in the United States, and estate agent (Q16148831) about estate agents / brokers in the United Kingdom. Most other language Wikipedias have linked with real estate broker (Q519076) and ignored the other. "Real estate consultant" may be the same a agent / broker, "real estate appraiser" is probably appraiser (Q10855106), but specifically for real estate. Ghouston (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## Taxon question (Marah oreganus/oregana)

I hesitate to weigh in on anything about taxons, because I've seen a big fight here almost every time it is opened up, but we have three wikipedias linked from Marah oregana (Q17430120) and three others, plus Commons, linked from Marah oregana (Q3845272). That cannot be good: they all refer to the same species. In the case of Commons, Commons own label actually matches Marah oregana (Q17430120). User:MILEPRO indicates in a discussion on Commons that oregana is accepted by Catalogue of Life,IPNI, Kewscience, and Tropicos. I have no idea which sources support the other taxon name, but presumably there are some. Could someone who knows far more about this than I do please sort this out? - Jmabel (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The gender problem: „although Kellogg originally (1854) used masculine gender, he later (1863) corrected this to feminine, which is the classical gender of the Hebrew name“. I merged the items. --Succu (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

## Turkish names

In Turkish we have 29 letters, of which some are somewhat "different" from other Latin script languages. In several languages letters like these may be accepted as letters with diacritical signs, in Turkish script no. They are "letters" as such for their proper right. These "different" letters are: ç, ş, ı (besides i), ü, ö and ğ. There are many Turkish proper names in which these letters are used. We cannot use one or the other of these letters in a "manipulated" way like c instead of ç or s instead of ş or g instead of ğ etc. This is not only against the alphabet itself and a lack of respect to the people who have those names as part of their identity but also a serious mistake, because we have many names which "look like" each other but they are different. A few examples of these similar but different names, most of which are both given and surnames:

<<Ergun and Ergün, Tuncer and Tunçer, Tuncel and Tunçel, Gülsen and Gülşen, Aysen and Ayşen, Sengül and Şengül, Sanlı and Şanlı, Sina and Sına, Senay and Şenay, Ersan and Erşan, Erksan and Erkşan, Nursen and Nurşen, Umran and Ümran, Seval (lit. "love and marry") and Şeval (springtime) (or Şevval / 10th month of the Islamic lunar calendar) etc.>>

Many thanks and regards. E4024 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your post but it unfortunately sometimes happens that a name is transcribed into another language in a way that does not capture the full original meaning. Therefore an entity may be known by a name in the foreign-speaking world that is different from the name it is known in its home country. For example, Vladimir Putin (Q7747) is correctly written as Владимир Владимирович Путин but is known in the German speaking world as "Wladimir Putin" and in the English speaking world as "Vladimir Putin" and in the French speaking world as "Vladimir Poutine". This is why we have name in native language (P1559) to indicate the correct name in the native language. I think something similar happens with Turkish names and entities, these are known in different countries by different names and it makes sense to populate these fields accordingly (otherwise a German speaker would never find what they are looking for if name in native language (P1559) did not have an entry for "Wladimir Putin"). I think we can solve your problem by using name in native language (P1559) where appropriate to make sure the correct native name is used, what do you think? --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. However, did you read the part between << and >>? These similar names in Turkish are so very many. BTW in making name entries we have "Latin script" and "Turkish alphabet" choices and when I began to work on these names I asked a very very active WD user which one to use and s/he indicated the Latin script. Then why do we have the "Turkish alphabet" as a choice? How do we separate Gülşen and Gülsen and hundreds of other similar names? In the end we are talking about a language which has an adapted Latin alphabet (like many other languages, Spanish, Portuguese German, etc) and not Russian or Chinese. IMHO P1559 should not be for Latin script languages like Turkish and I only correct the spelling of a handful of languages, I am not interested in German or Dutch, I am interested especially in English, the basic language here and I almost always add, as "alias" some easier form, as in the case of Beril Böcekler (Q56173992). Look, maybe I was not very clear, I was speaking about "names" not "people". See Tuncer (Q32945156; it is not the "name without diacritical marks" of another name. "Tuncer" is one Turkish name and "Tunçer" is "another" Turkish name! What is so difficult in getting this? If a person's name is Tunçer Öztunç you may write it as an "alias" Tuncer Oztunc" -in languages other than mine, Turkish- but the "label" is Tunçer Öztunç because that is the name of the person, and an important part of his/her identity. And the label of Tuncer is Tuncer and that of Tunçer is Tunçer and the names in Latin script do not need aliases nor can be claimed as "a version without diacritical mark", because they are not. Let me make clearer: I did not come here for "aliases" of people's names. I came here for "Turkish proper names" (before being added to anyone).

BTW I somehow feel a prejudice against my language but I prefer to keep to myself some disruptive edits and attitudes I observed and noted by certain people, until the point when I will get really very annoyed. Keeping everybody else apart, I even suspect a lack of goodwill on the part of some people. If not, how, say, a name like x (put any language name here, even written in other alphabets) could appear here as "Dutch"?! Please. E4024 (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry if I dont understand your problem completely; but we have similar issues in German as well (a word with and without ö may have different meaning, for example schön is different from schon). I think it would also help to make an example where the problem occurs that you are describing. For your example of Tuncer, there is two different items Tunçer (Q71888499) and Tuncer (Q32945156) that describe the two different concepts (two different names) and as you have indicated above, these are distinct names. So you are able to model this in Wikidata and as you describe the label for an entity Tunçer Öztunç would be correctly given as Tunçer Öztunç in Turkish and possible a translation of that in another language (similar to my example of Vladimir Putin).
name in native language (P1559) does not presume that the name is in a different script and is used on examples such as George Washington (Q23) which are English names but of course also have their names listed in Turkish (George Washington), Russian (Джордж Вашингтон), Sanskrit (जार्ज वाशिंगटन) and many other languages. In order to make it clear what the name is in the native language (here English), name in native language (P1559) is used and listed as "George Washington (English)". As you can see, usage of name in native language (P1559) does not make any assumption about one script being preferred to others, it simply states what the name looks like in the native language. I hope that helps.
For your example Beril Böcekler (Q56173992) I think everything is in order here, the Wikipedia articles in different languages list her as Beril Böcekler (en,ca,it,pt,tr) and so that should be the label used, adding an alias Beril Bocekler probably helps since this is the name used by Anadolu Agency (the state-owned Turkish publications in English) and therefore should be added since she is "also know as" Beril Bocekler at least by Anadolu Agency and also some others.
To answer your question: "How do we separate Gülşen and Gülsen and hundreds of other similar names? " -> I would say in the same way as for Tuncer, we create two different items Gülşen (Q70501229) and Gülsen (Q83354020) and thus describe both names. You can make it more clear for non-Turkish editors by using different from (P1889) to indicate that these are two different names. This means that Zekiye Gülsen (Q15731569) links to Gülsen (Q83354020) and Olcay Gülşen (Q3674593) links to Gülşen (Q70501229). The wikidata model even allows you to create an item for Gülşen (Q13435177), the female first name which is carried by Gülşen Değener (Q29722) and is of course different from both Gülşen (Q70501229) and Gülsen (Q83354020), the two last names. Does that work for you?
Does this solve your issue or is there an example where a problem still occurs that you cannot solve? --Hannes Röst (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## Deletion policy

What exactly are the rules here for deletion? Can admins just delete non-vandalism items for notability reasons without listing them on the requests for deletion page? Is there no process that has to be followed? Looking through the logs I'm seeing a lot of deletions of things that look potentially notable to me that I don't think ever touched the RfD page for discussion. In particular I'm looking at @MisterSynergy:'s recent deletions. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• There are the Wikidata:Deletion policy and the Wikidata:Notability policy. Neither of them requires a listing on a certain page (such as WD:RfD) prior to a deletion.
• Wikidata:Requests for deletions is not predominantly a discussion page either, and cases listed there can be processed immediately with no minimum "discussion period". Its main purpose is to bring items to admin attention; discussions only emerge in complicated situations.
• I look for items with problems regularly, and have several worklists to collect them. Usually I delete somthing of the order of 2000 items per week, most of them are not being listed on any project page before I delete; currently around 0.1% of my deletions (~1 item per 1000 deletions) are being restored due to user requests.
• You can always ask for undeletion in case you think there is something to add to an item that was deleted. The undeletion process is as unbureaucratic as the deletion process.

MisterSynergy (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

A low undelete rate doesn't mean there's a low error rate. I'm not going to spend energy requesting undeletion for these things. That said I don't see the value in many of these deletions and I can't even evaluate them for un-deletion given I can't see deleted edits. I might take a look at your SPARQL queries and make sure I mark-up items I create such that they won't show up in them. I just wish there were any oversight or notification here. E.g. An admin flags an item and then a bot deletes in 48 hours. BrokenSegue (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
My focus is usually on items that have lost all sitelinks (via User:Pasleim/Items for deletion/Page deleted and archives), or empty items (i.e. do not contain any statements or sitelinks). I collect some of the queries on User:MisterSynergy/sysop/items for deletion, which also contains stuff that I don't really use. What follows is effectively an evaluation whether the item technically meets the notability requirements, in particular whether there is anything available *in the item* that helps identifying the subject (a sitelink, identifiers (with exceptions), references on any statement, or backlinks from other items).
From the content side, there is practically everything you can imagine involved. Larger fractions of content include purely technical items (such as category items without sitelinks), but there are also quite a lot of promotional items about humans or startups; I also regularly see items with severe BLP issues that are completely unsourced.
My attempts to contact involved users in advance of a deletion were not particularly successful, as they often don't want to do anything as they have abandoned the content anyways, or don't know what to do, or forget doing something in spite of having been notified. There is also a substantial amount of items which have been created based on (meanwhile deleted) Wikipedia content solely by different bots or import scripts/tools—there is simply no editor who is still interested in an improvement or who could be contacted. Also mind that there is a constant influx of the order of thousands of unrelated new cases per week.
The described procedure is quite established, I do it more or less since I became an admin a little more than three years ago. A low undeletion rate of course does not mean that everything is fine, yet I think my assessments are usually correct—and otherwise I am not hesitating to undelete in most situations, as described above. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
In my view, deletion of items without mentioning in Requests for deletion is not a problem. The main reason I think is already stated by MisterSynergy ie. it involves deletion of thousands of items. I think it's quiet a natural action that is currently occurring in all wikis that are populated, meaning, the ones that have thousands of edits per day/week. Adithyak1997 (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
With proper effort it would be possible for admins to delete just as quickly while also providing authors/others the ability to object. Undelete isn't the same. BrokenSegue (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate how this could look like? I would agree that the process could be more transparent, but whatever we do needs to scale well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
What we would need is a system that allows only admins to "tag" items and allows non-admins to remove those tags. Could be done via a new protected property of items with the rationale as the property value. Items with that property for more than some time would get deleted by a bot. Users could remove the property (or request a bot do so somehow) and migrate to RfD. This would seem to be just as fast as deletion but provides some window for dispute/oversight. I believe this would be similar to Wikipedia's "Proposed deletion" system. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way for a normal user to see their deleted edits? I create many items, too many to just keep an eye on them if they're deleted (or vandalised, or just extended). I have no idea how many of my items where deleted, but reading this discussion I start to be curious about that. Edoderoo (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
xtools has such a functionality, but it works only for users with up to 400k edits. No idea whether other tools are around, but users with more than 400k edits can make direct SQL queries such as this one. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
If you add items to your watchlist (things I create are auto-added), you can at least see when an item gets deleted. It doesn't help with what it was or why it was deleted. But at least you'd know that something was deleted. Quakewoody (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
A watchlist helps if you create an item a day. I create up to a 1000 items a day if I'm up to speed. A watchlist doesn't help anymore. I checked, in 5 years time 3160 items were deleted, some very recent. These might be items where I added one property, label or description, then it's no big deal for over 2.5M edits in total. Those were all items I created, so it's a complete waste of my time to share knowledge that gets deleted by others, without any notice. Edoderoo (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I can only hope that there is something that I can not see as a regular user, that will justify deletion of all those 3160 items that I have created. I try to spend a lot of time adding properties and sources to these properties, so for me it now feels like 3160 minutes of my life has been deleted by a sysop that didn't even want to let me know my life was shortened for 53 hours. I'm extremely pissed off right now. Edoderoo (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Though this is more a rant rather than an actionable request, I have quickly looked into your deleted items. Based on random sampling, the clear majority of them has lost all of their sitelinks and did not meet the notability criteria any longer. You also seem to have created a lot of items for Wikinews articles that have been deleted; those where created with Petscan apparently, thus not really manual editing. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What is the worth of notability if we create 100.000 scientists a day that only have one label, one property P31=Q5 and one OrcID filled? Edoderoo (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, it is a valid project policy. Whataboutism does not help to undermine its applicability to other cases; if you think it should be modified, you can trigger a discussion (RfC) if you'd like to. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Plus, I suspect that the plan is to link them to publications in the future, with the help of the identifier. But importing such datasets take a lot of time. --Misc (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: Where is the bot request for having 100.000 scientists that only have one label, one property P31=Q5 and one OrcID? If you are creating items in amounts where you can't track them via the watchlist you should fill the bot requests to find the consensus to add large numbers of items. I don't think anybody deleted items for which there's bot approval consensus that they should exist. ChristianKl❫ 09:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, I did not create a single scientist with the specifications you give, and I'm not talking about items created by my Edoderoobot account. And I don't plan to defend myself against accusations that are missing any base of clear sense. Sorry for that. Edoderoo (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• The RfD page is filled with things that should be deleted. It is so rare that anything is worth keeping, that I don't even "vote" to delete. I only say when I think something is a keeper, or if there is something others should see - like "previously deleted", "created by spammer", or "is this related to". Quakewoody (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Additional hints are in fact very useful, but "votes" on WD:RfD are pretty useless anyways. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Which is why I put the word "vote" in quotes. Quakewoody (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Would it be possible to configure an abuse filter that allows only admins to add "P:Item_to_be_deleted" and every autoconfirmed user to remove such statements? Then a bot could delete all items with such claims after 3 days. If a user deletes such a statement the bot could automatically open a thread in items for deletions. In cases where an admin deletes 1000 items / week adding such statements should be a similar or lower amount of work then the current process. Using QuickStatements would make it easier to delete larger amounts of items.
Having the functionality like this would also allow us to make it it's own right, so we could allow non-admins to use this new delete process if a non-admin wants to run cleanup processes that deletes large numbers of items. ChristianKl❫ 08:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• This is probably a reply to User:BrokenSegue's proposal further up in this topic. Another similar proposal was recently made at Wikidata talk:Requests for deletions#The deletion process should be made more visible by User:Discostu, with the difference that they proposed to use the item talk page and a template instead of direct claims. That would be much simpler technically and conceptually, yet it would allow the same sort of oversight.
Problem with all of these ideas is that there needs to be a proper notability assessment and with both proposals, it needs to be done twice (before adding the tag, and before the actual deletion) and thus it *at least* doubles the actual effort we need to invest here. In case this is not clear: I may be deleting 2000 items per week regularly, but do not delete just because they happen to appear on a query result; I do make a thorough check for several aspects for each individual item before I delete it. This is the part which is taking the most time, not the querying or clicking the "delete" button. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• @MisterSynergy: I think the actual deletion should be done automatically by a bot that mainly relies on the first notability assessment. The bot might further not delete the item if it has sitelinks or external links but it's okay if it relies for the qualitative judgement on the first deletion. That's why we wouldn't want to give the right to delete this way to all autoconfirmed users but only admins and users that we consider to be trustworthy based on being rollbackers and having participated in RfD in the past.
I think using claims on items has benefits over using the talk page because claims on items interact better with other tools. As I for example care a lot for our anatomy items I could set up a listeria page that lists all anatomy items that are nominated for deletion and put that page on my watchlist.
Putting the nomination on a talk page would also mean that we need to create and then delete a talk page for many items that didn't have a talk page before. ChristianKl❫ 09:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## part and whole: merge or not?

This edit by an IP brought these two items to my attention: trick-taking game (Q1191150) and trick (Q11755381). Upon translating the Polish article at Q11755381, I was able to identify that it deals with the concept of tricks, while the English article at Q1191150 is about games that employ tricks, so they are conceptually different, though very similar. I tend to think that they should not be merged, but would like to hear other opinions. If we keep the items separate, a couple of articles will have to be moved from Q1191150 to Q11755381: de, et, nl, no, pt and maybe stq. —capmo (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Capmo: If you added part of (P361)-has part (P527), it looks like you are just vetoed merging possibility by yourself. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Liuxinyu970226, my edits can be easily reverted if necessary. I just wanted a confirmation that I'm doing the right thing. —capmo (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

## Q2102 and Q25537662

The two items regard repectively the taxon Serpentes and "snake", that is the vulgar name of the taxon. I think they should be merged.--R5b43 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## Merging entries about the African diaspora: " Project:Make Wikipedia blacker (Q63870968)" and " WikiProject African diaspora (Q15304953) "

I am trying to merge " Project:Make Wikipedia blacker (Q63870968)" Q63870968 (French, Spanish, and Catalan wikipedias) and " WikiProject African diaspora (Q15304953)" Q15304953 (English and Portuguese wikipedias) as all of the projects refer to the African diaspora, but the conflicts prevent a merge.

Would it be alright if steps were taken to combine these?

Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you plan to do to Wikidata:WikiProject Ennegreciendo Noircir Wikimedia and Wikidata:WikiProject African Diaspora? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It seems like someone should suggest a merge -- they seem like they cover the same ground but in different languages (like the respective WP projects). Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure this should be merged. I see the point about covering the same ground (so useful for links), but people in the project might object being seen as 1 single project, especially when it come to governance and WMF representation (since the rule is usually 1 representative per project). Have you discussed with the projects about that ? --Misc (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

## Public user name for YT channel

Why can't I use Property:P554 on Property:P2397? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: I think it might be due to the reason that 'public username' can only be applied on items having property 'website account on'. Adithyak1997 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Adithyak1997: Okay, confusing. I don't know how this should be solved. Maybe a new property for "YouTube channel name" needs to be created. I think some channels don't even have an associated username anymore. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Since you mentioned that it's 'confusing', please wait for a more experienced user to reply. It's actually mentioned in this page too. Adithyak1997 (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• YouTube ID is not "Alexis Jazz", it is "abc123xyz789". Quakewoody (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## Deprecated Rank

I have come across a situation in Hans Krüsi (Q931779) where I am pretty confident that the correct place of birth is Zurich, Switzerland (listed in an semi-official biography). However GND lists Speicher as place of birth. In a situation like this, should we ignore GND or should we add the wrong place of birth with Rank deprecated ? Adding deprecated rank seems correct, the question is whether we want to add incorrect information on purpose just so that we can label it as incorrect -- or just leave it be and list the correct information? --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In that situation list both as valid items and provide a reference for each. Then set the one you believe is accurate to "preferred" rank. "Deprecated" should be used only where there is clear evidence of an error, not where you have a personal view of the validity of one source over another. I have had plenty of examples where I have found a statement I thought was wrong is later supported by more reliable sources. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
GND is just a tertiary resource. There are few complex ways to identify the actual reference they used.
In the meantime, you could set it to deprected with the reason for deprecation (P2241)=possibly invalid entry requiring further references (Q35779580) or cannot be confirmed by other sources (Q25895909) --- Jura 19:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## Merge request

Hi I just created Huize Ivicke (Q96758035) after creating an English language wikipedia page for the monumental Huize Ivicke but when entering values found the place had already been created with no name at Huize Ivicke (Q18774472), presumably when someone was creating Qnumbers for all Dutch monuments. Can the two Qnumbers be merged? By the way, there isn't a relevant Dutch wikipedia page yet. Thanks Mujinga (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Yes, see Help:Merge for instructions. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: Unfortunately I did it. I will try to make users do it next time. Adithyak1997 (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Well thanks to both in any case Mujinga (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

## Removing from the watchlist

How do I remove Wikidata:Requests for deletions‎ from my watchlist? Pmt (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

For any page you wish to remove from your watchlist, visit the page. Near the top of the window, a little right of center, you will see a solid blue star; it's right next to the box to search Wikidata. Click on the star and the star will be filled with white instead of blue. This indicates it is no longer on your watchlist.
Conversely, for any page you want to add to your watchlist, click the white star; it will turn blue and be on your watchlist. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there a way to edit the whole watchlist? Levana Taylor (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Special:EditWatchlist. Ghouston (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

## Guam

Anybody interested in helping sorting up the administrative division of Guam (Q16635)? Do we have a Wikiproject page for Guam?

Guam is divided into 19 "villages". But it does not look like we have any item describing this administrative division, even though we have an item for every county in all of the states of the US. We have Q7293178, but it does not look like we have any "main namespace-item" for them. 62 etc (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is w:Villages of Guam linked to a list item. --- Jura 10:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
They're not all modelled in exactly the same way (e.g. some have instance of (P31):village (Q532) and others instance of (P31):village in the United States (Q751708), but we can get the list of all 19 via
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
?item wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q532; wdt:P131 wd:Q16635 .
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
ORDER BY ?itemLabel

Try it!
I suspect we want a new item for "village of Guam" (which is a subclass of municipality (Q15284) or something in that hierarchy), which each of them can be set to, and then have list of Villages of Guam (Q1258753) as a list of that, etc. That can all be automated fairly easily, and I'm happy to help out with it if that would be useful. --Oravrattas (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Good! Be aware of ceb:Kategoriya:Mga subdibisyon sa Guam which seem to be a category of all 19 administrative villages while ceb:Kategoriya:Mga lungsod sa Guam is about populated places within these villages, often with the same name. 62 etc (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

## Software change

Hello, all,

The mw:New requirements for user signatures will begin on Monday, 6 July 2020. This is a change to MediaWiki software that will prevent editors from accidentally setting certain types of custom signatures, such as a custom signature that creates Special:LintErrors (such as <span>...<span> instead of <span>...</span>) or a signature that does not link to the local account.

Few editors will be affected. If you want to know whether your signature (or any individual editor) is okay, you can check your signature at https://signatures.toolforge.org/check You are not required to fix an invalid custom signature immediately. Starting Monday, editors will not be able to create new invalid signatures to Special:Preferences. Later, we will contact affected editors. Eventually, invalid custom signatures will stop working. There will be an announcement in m:Tech/News then. You can subscribe to m:Tech/News. You can also put mw:New requirements for user signatures on your watchlist.

I don't know if you have a help page or policy related to custom signatures; if you do, it's possible that it might need some small changes. If you have questions, then please ping me or ask questions at mw:Talk:New requirements for user signatures. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

--- Jura 06:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. I have just fixed the URL. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
An overall report for Wikidata is also available, as well as overall reports for some other wikis (but not all). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## Position held / occupation

Hi all! Has the difference between the position held (P39) / occupation (P106) changed? An editor regularly deletes position held (P39) properties ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5] etc) and rewrites them to the occupation (P106) property - in a lot of items (for example: [6] -> [7]). Is this correct or can it be undone?

(I corrected some earlier, but he withdrew it) See also: Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P1047 Palotabarát (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Royalty & Nassau Expert, Looperz: --- Jura 10:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• That definitely looks wrong to me - the specific "Bishop of X" is definitely a position. There's nothing wrong with saying "position held: Bishop of X" and "occupation: bishop" (or clergyman, or priest, etc), but removing position entirely is a problem. This is a very confusing way to handle it and it's not how we normally deal with positions. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• It's possible that some of this is down to the long-running issue as to the scope of P39. The labels and descriptions for the property still differ quite dramatically across different languages, with some restricting it specifically to political positions; some saying political and ecclesiastical; some saying public office; some basically any position at all (to presumably include things like Chief Executive of companies, etc.) --Oravrattas (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't care anymore about what you think is right or wrong. I discovered that this database is corrupted with more fake information than I can correct. So go ahead, do whatever you like. I know when a case is a hopeless one. I won't contribute to Wikidata or Wikipedia anymore. So you won't see edits from me anymore. My watchlist goes empty, my e-mail address will be deleted. So I won't read what you will do. Royalty & Nassau Expert (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello dear fellow contributors. and thank you for pinging me, Jura. I am sad to read about a conflict that caused somebody to be disappointed about or even quit his voluntary workload. But that's only one aspect and this was my first impression. Royalty & Nassau Expert did not want to accept any definition of the difference between those two things "I'm sorry but I'm not responsible for the fact that the database is wrongfully making distinction between occupation and position held." was something that you were able to read on his Discussion-Page before he deleted everything there only few minutes ago. Another cite is this "I don't care anymore about what you think is right or wrong." just one paragraph above. There are many ways to react on things you do not understand or do not agree with;

1. keep away
2. read the discussions and start new ones even trying to convince others
3. try to find a coexistence of your solution and the other one (thats what often happens to special extra declared Bishop positions, some of them have extra entries, most of them dont)
4. try to erase all other work because you are convinced your way of seeing things is the only correct one

Nobody has problems with methods 1 and 2. and in my brave moments i sometimes take even method 3, because using SparQL for statistical things i depend on certain entries. But taking option °3 is stressful enough for me, because this does not end the discussions that pop up from time to time. Taking option °4 on purpose and repeatedly is the no-go-area, and imho reason enough to ban a user temporarily, because this is the way we start to work against each other. That is not the way this beautiful project is able to flourish.

This all seems to be also a little bit about terminology and that could possibly differ from language to language. (Btw.: Look for wp-articles "Bishop of XYZ" that are mixed up with. "List of Bishops of XYZ" of another language.) Getting that international differences under control is our challenge.

In my opinion the difference between position held (P39) and occupation (P106) is already defined precise enough. Roughly and shortened: For a occupation (P106) you have "only" to be qualified enough (Including some times high level degrees like PhD and regional Limits) For a position held (P39) you have to be appointed/elected or in religious leading positions sometimes even to be consecrated. What happened here was the beginning of an edit-war. And thus I am glad, that somebody surrendered "nearly" at the right time. --Looperz (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If you think you know better and make such a stupid distinction between occupation and position held for medieaval persons, be my guest. You apparently haven't understood much about history then. But don't tell me what I should do or don't do. I did read the "instructions". But I'm not going to uphold stupid instructions made by people that have no clue.
You don't like my contributions? Fine with me. Be so kind to undo them ALL. I don't care. Like I said, Wikidata is a hopeless case. I'm not going to put anymore time and energy in it. I would welcome it very much if all my edits will be erased from here. Then we both will be happy, you can carry on with more utter rubbish in the database, and I don't see my name as contributor to it. Royalty & Nassau Expert (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## street name sign

Hello. It useful (or do we already have/using a property) to have an image with the street name sign (Q1969455) that have the name of a person, to person's item?

The only item I have found is Simone Rapin (Q3484599), that uses image (P18) with qualifier depicts (P180) -> street name sign (Q1969455). Is that the right way to add the street name sign to person's item?

Xaris333 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see a good reason to have street name sign claims on a person's item. Their place would be the item of the street in question. ChristianKl❫ 16:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Xaris333: I agree with @ChristianKl: ; especially in this case where the street name is "Rue des Terreaux-du-Temple" and "rue Simone-Rapin" is an artistic performance/action. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## Merge « reference url » and « url »

Why do we really have url search both with reference URL (P854)  ? This caused at least one time confusion for newcomers, and I see no real good reason to keep both : When used as a reference url search cannot be something else as the url of the reference.

I’d propose to merge them. I know this has been like that for a very long time, but it’s never too late to do good. author talk page 11:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

OK with that. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@TomT0m, Thierry Caro: The correct way to propose a merge is WD:PFD.--GZWDer (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: I wanted to check wether there could be a chance community would agree before taking it a step further. These are widely used properties. author talk page 15:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Support merging these. - PKM (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ghouston, Dipsacus fullonum: Actually I think atm. the model has some unatural feature. I think for example that « official website » is a sane statement to make about a company or a person, but for other kind of entities like, say « website », it’s pretty unnatural to me to use « official website », but « url » is natural. For a press or academic article as well. author talk page 07:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• That too. I wonder what would be lost, if anything, if all three of reference URL (P854), official website (P856). and URL (P2699) were combined into a single property labelled "URL". References are determined by context, in the reference section, and other things can be distinguished with qualifiers. Of course any change in this area would result in a massive editing job. Ghouston (talk) 08:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## Problems with item submission

I've been trying to create a page and it was disallowed because of the "specific spam items". Where can I learn what exactly is considered a spam item?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.100.66.124 (talk • contribs) at 17:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

Looks like you tripped Special:AbuseFilter/132, which is a non-public filter (I don't have access to it, either). User:Jasper Deng, is there any advice you can give without compromising the effectiveness of the filter? Vahurzpu (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: The filter worked as designed; the item they tried to create was really spammy: (English) label "Changelly", (English) description "Instant cryptocurrency exchange platform that acts as an intermediary between exchanges and users.".--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Okay, thanks. Good to know that the filter's working properly. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu:
@Jasper Deng:

Thank you, however I was wondering if there is anything the mentioned company can do to get this item published

## Location of languages

I am informed that 6,405 items about languages (or subclass of) have coordinates; for example German is said to be located at 52°0'0.000"N, 10°0'0.000"E ("±0.000001°"). I've never been to that point, I admit (it's a field south of Hildesheim, in Lower Saxony - it's quite possible nobody has spoken any language there for weeks), but I have heard German used elsewhere - from Scotland to Australia, and from Qatar to the United States. The situation is ridiculous, and no doubt for some, insulting (are we going to tell the majority of Kosovans that their language belongs not there, but in Albania?). Can we reach consensus that "coordinate location" should not be used for languages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Support removing coordinates from languages. - PKM (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• My query only gave 2556 results for languages with coordinates, but I agree that geographic coordinates for a language don't make sense and shouldn't be used. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dipsacus fullonum: https://w.wiki/VuT (not 6406 items but 6406 coordinates, only 2412 items). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Ping to @Marcmiquel: who added the coordinates for at least the languages where I checked the item history. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't understand this. Language have territories (where it's mainly/actively spoken) and, as always, you can approximate a territory with a point (like we do for many territories, cities, countries, continents, etc.). Plus, there is many sources who commonly gives coordinates for language. And if languages don't have coordinate location (P625) how can we build linguistic map (Q1778220)? and what about other geographic properties for languages like distribution map (P1846) and geoshape (P3896)? Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• @VIGNERON: Many taxon (Q16521) use taxon range map image (P181). You could just as well ask how we can be built them without also having coordinate location (P625), yet only 21 taxon items have coordinates. I think pointing to a single geographic point for both languages and taxons in most cases are misleading. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, taxon range map image (P181) is the equivalent of distribution map (P1846) for taxon. And this file could probably (and painfully) converted geoshape (P3896) but there is often a need and a use to represent with only a point (for sake of readability for instance as languages territories almost always overlap). And this is maybe "misleading" but this is very common, many linguistic maps do it (the World Atlas of Language Structures or the UNESCO Atlas of the World's Languages in Danger to cite only two reliable sources).

Popcorndude Nikki SynConlanger Infovarius Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Lore.mazza81 Notified participants of WikiProject Linguistics VIGNERON (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Please notify the WikiProject Languages. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Visite fortuitement prolongée: I pinged the Linguistics project but it's not possible to ping the project Languages, I'll leave a message there. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agreed with VIGNERON. The location are often sourced with information from World Atlas of Language Structures (Q1133223), so this is enough to me as we can avoid to see "weird" coordinates to be added. I agree it may appears strange for world languages (German, Arabic, etc) to have such coordinates but moist of the languages (several thousands) are spoken only in few villages and so pointing to a precise point( that can be seen as a barycentre) is useful. Pamputt (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose of course a language is intangible and can't have coordinates, but there's currently no other way to put coordinates of the place where it's spoken, so it should stay Germartin1 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## Feedback on movement names

There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.

Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.

Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.

Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement, --The Brand Project team, 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

• I think it would have been hard to make the "consulation" in a way that's more insulting to the idea of consultation. There's no reason why the status quo isn't on the list despite the WMF thinking that their proposal is so unpopular that they know that nobody wants it and that it's necessary to circumvent democratic consultation for it. There's also no reason why all the options aren't shown to the user before voting on individual options. ChristianKl❫ 07:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## Does Wikidata still import from Wikipedia?

Hi, noob here. Apologies if this is in the archives, I've done some searching.

My understanding is that Wikidata was in the past populated with data (such as place coordinates) from Wikipedia. Today, Wikipedia users are saying Wikidata should never be used in Wikipedia because supposedly the following can happen:

1. someone incompetently creates a place article in Wikipedia with wrong, say, coordinates
2. this place article is imported and becomes a Wikidata item
3. the wrong data then is propagated to other Wikipedias (i.e. other languages).

Could this have happened in the past and can it still happen ? --Cornellier (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC).

There are also cases where a statement have the wrong value imported because the correct value doesn't have it's own WP article. --Trade (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cornellier: If we are dealing with something not otherwise cited: the issue is exactly the same as if Wikidata isn't an intermediary. If material in Wikipedia in some language is uncited and possibly erroneous, and it is copied to another Wikipedia, then that other Wikipedia gets uncited and possibly erroneous information. The situation is literally the same if Wikidata is an intermediary. So it all comes down to what "should never be used" means. Are the same users saying articles should never be translated from one Wikipedia to another? Are they making any distinction between material that is cited from a reliable source and material that is not? - Jmabel (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Sure anything can be replicated, good or bad. But my question is this: is the exchange of data between Wikipedia and Wikidata synchronous or asynchronous? If one goal is to create a centralized db, then one would hope for the latter, surely? --Cornellier (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
There is no single answer. Wikidata is used to support different Wikimedia projects depending on the consensus of those Wikiprojects. Commons, for example, makes use of a lot of Wikidata to populate entries on paintings, creators and category infoboxes (see this Commons image as an example; almost all the text is imported from Wikidata). Some language versions of Wikipedia use Wikidata to populate their infoboxes, including automatically importing the image file used on the corresponding Wikidata item. For many languages with a low number of editors, the priority is to harness the power of Wikidata to generate content faster than they can do so on their own; the quality of Wikidata sourcing is also usually either on par with those projects or sometimes better than them. In other more developed and popular projects though, such as English Wikipedia, there is less trust in the quality of data compared to the quality of information already in their own project. Automatically importing Wikidata's still developing content into the more developed articles of a more developed Wikipedia would reduce the quality of that Wikipedia's content for a time, until the source data at Wikidata is corrected. Despite the lack of trust in automatic updates between Wikidata and English Wikipedia, enwiki does use Wikidata to generate non-article content, such as en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/United Kingdom. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree, and I could give many examples of enwiki using wikidata. But my question is the other way around. Does Wikidata still source info from enwiki? --Cornellier (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It happens that Wikidata contributor import information from Wikipedia, with or without its references. That Wikipedia has incorrect information happens, just like studies in journals can be retracted. The advantage of Wikidata is that it keeps track of correct and incorrect information. --- Jura 06:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there is some js widget that help with automated creation. While I can't speak for all items creation, based on the ongoing effort to revert the mass deletion of sexual orientation (P91) at the end of May 2020, the majority of those imports were correct. Based on the current work page on Wikidata:WikiProject_LGBT/Unsourced_sexual_orientation#Hard_to_source_and/or_false, we had around 8 where we couldn't find any sources at all, except if we count the bunch of folks listed as heterosexual imported from russian WP by 1 single user, which, given the climate in the country and stats around the topic, would be likely correct. 2 months after, we are still working on fixing the unannounced mass deletion, but clearly, the error rate was quite low (8 out of ~2000, we are in the 0.5% range, and only because we assume things to be false unless proven otherwise). Now there was some smaller errors (people listed as lesbian when they were bi, etc), but we didn't track those, and the modeling is a bit messy because that's a messy topic. --Misc (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Cornellier: When using Wikidata from Wikipedia you can filter the data based on it having references with reference URL (P854) or stated in (P248) to avoid reimporting Wikipedia imports that will either have no reference or references with imported from Wikimedia project (P143). This is the primary way to prevent wrong data sourced to Wikipedia's from being reimported by Wikipedias. ChristianKl❫ 07:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I import some data from wikipedias to wikidata, and yes "vandalism spread" (based on the mechanism you've described) being noticed in home ru-wiki a few times per year. I personally thinks it is a reasonable price for vandalism detection in wikimedia projects. Ghuron (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## For described by source (P1343), allow section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) under statement is subject of (P805)

Suppose, for described by source (P1343) of BookA in a Wikidata item, we want to link s:BookA/volume 1 and s:BookA/volume 2#section III. A user have to type, under described by source (P1343) of BookA: in statement is subject of (P805), [volume 1, volume 2] and, in section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958), [<empty>, section III]. Few user know they must type an empty value. If we make a section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) option under statement is subject of (P805), then a user would type, in statement is subject of (P805) under described by source (P1343) of BookA, volume 1 and [volume 2, section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958), section III]. It will make data structure clearer.--The Master (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## Question about conflation in WorldCat identities

I've been side-tracked into trying to clean up some authority control links and have been discovering what many of you probably already know, that it's practically the Herculean labor of the Augean stables in the case of a common name, what with bots merrily linking to a slight resemblance or to a mistake that another bot already made. But it's usually possible either to move an authority to its correct item or to create a conflation item for it. WorldCat Identities puzzle me, though. They are usually linked to a Library of Congress authority record, but they then go on to list books supposedly by that author, which in most cases aren't, but are rather by multiple different authors. The LOC record doesn't name those books, so I don't know where WorldCat is getting its authorship information. Should I treat such WorldCat records as conflations? Levana Taylor (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• I've asked some folks from OCLC to help us with this question, but it's a long holiday weekend in the US so I wouldn't expect an answer for a few days. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• From what I've found over time, I think that the system works as follows: from the identifier it gets a heading (if it's an LCCN then there's a unique associated heading, like "Baker, James, lieutenant-colonel" in the example above) and it then looks for that exact string in the "author" field of whatever library records it has in the database. Therefore, I don't think it would be possible to disambiguate manually. Take a look at this book in one local library's catalog. If you go into the MARC record (link at bottom of left column), it only has the author's name as "Berger, Warren"; nowhere does it have the LoC authority number "n96041686". If some other Warren Berger popped up, the record would become ambiguous unless updated. Given that WorldCat has thousands of member libraries, I don't know if "get every library to recatalog ambiguous works" would be very effective. Vahurzpu (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that can be right--there's not enough randomness. In my second example, although the works span many authors and many topics, from airport security screening to tantalum ore to the sanitation of New Guinea, they are all either prepared by or for legislatures and government agencies, or else deal with technicalities of government (International Law and the Arctic for example has no government affiliation in its preparation or publication). It's not all the same government, so that can't be what's causing them to be grouped together. I wonder if the order of events from authorship to grouping wasn't the other way around: first have a machine create a group based on a cloud of similarities like government affiliation or government policy subject tags, then attach that group to the identity of the author of the most-commonly-shelved work in the group. I've checked a few more identities, and in all of them, the first work on the list has its author correctly identified, even if misfits get into the list farther down. Levana Taylor (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• The way I see it, It's not the role of Wikidata to be a scorekeeper of every inaccuracy on the internet. All databases have some amount of error (Wikidata, Worldcat, VIAF, Internet Movie Database (Q37312), Internet Broadway Database (Q31964) etc.), but I see little sense in modifying external identifiers with qualifiers. Yes, some bibliographic databases include works from the wrong author, and some performance databases conflate actors. We could tag every slightly inaccurate value with all the possible or potential conflated IDs, but it'd be moot once the source is updated, rendering Wikidata needlessly complicated (and also then incorrect in itself) and who's going to come back and fix all the Wikidata items that are now no longer conflations? I say do the best with what we've got, e-mail the database stewards if you feel up to it, but let's not bend over backwards to note that a particular error occurred at one time. -Animalparty (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
That way of looking at things certainly simplifies matters enormously. Just figure out what author the WorldCat identity was supposed to represent (easy in the case of their "lccn-" and "viaf-" numbers, and in the case of their "np-" numbers, I think it'll be the first one on the list), and that is that. It's useful to draw a distinction between conflation and other sorts of error: if lccn-n2013070019, for James Baker (Arctic scholar), contains one work by him and nineteen by others, it's not because he's been confused with those others, but because the automated process did a bad job of matching him with works in the catalog. Levana Taylor (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## Creation of many duplicates

It seems that indefinitely blocked user User:MrProperLawAndOrder has created a large number of duplicates of persons. I looked at this batch and noticed dozens of duplicates (at least as far as Polish actors go). Is this batch worth keeping ? Kpjas (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• There is some cleanup ongoing per WD:AN#Cleanup. It seems that the user even duplicated themselves. I think all entries that couldn't be expanded by User:Bargioni should go. --- Jura 06:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• QuickStatements sometimes executes commands twice even if they are in the input only once. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah, this is different from the duplicates mentioned on WD:AN#Cleanup.
Seems to be the case here. 5000 items in the batch, 5420 created. --- Jura 08:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I checked items with duplicated Deutsche Biographie ID (P7902) and found only one.--GZWDer (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: Tadeusz Teodorczyk (Q95860697) vs Tadeusz Teodorczyk (Q9354938), Zbigniew Bielski (Q95876750) vs Zbigniew Bielski (Q9387771), Janusz Bukowski (Q95827880) vs Janusz Bukowski (Q7944766) and the list goes on and on. I have no idea how many there are new items by MrProperLawAndOrder but I presume there'd be some hundreds of duplicates. Kpjas (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• The duplicates I mentioned above, sometimes cause constraint violations like VIAF or ISNI. Would it be practicable for QS to stop the offending batch after some threshold is reached ? Kpjas (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I just added some references to a painting from the Christie's auction record which was already archived to the wayback machine, so I used that as a ref here. I just noticed though that you can't expand the web.archive url to get the rest of the text. Is there a way to save the whole url to the web.archive? Q is Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery in Brussels (Q19960949) and Christie's record with expandable text I would like to cite is here. Jane023 (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## Open for signatures - Community open letter on renaming

Dear all,

There is an open letter that requests a pause to renaming activities being pursued by the Wikimedia Foundation 2030 Brand Project.

Individual editors and affiliates can sign with their logged-in account to show support.

The letter focuses on concerns about the process, and not about specific naming choices. With 50 major chapters and affiliates and 600+ individuals signing the statement, we are seeing great interest in this issue.

Related to this: the branding team is conducting a survey that runs until July 7. There is concern that the consultation process and options on the survey do not adequately reflect community sentiment, given the effect name changes for the foundation and movement would have. This served as a motivation for the open letter. Useful links are below:

• Brand survey for individuals - Qualtrics survey. If there are options you would like to highlight outside of the three provided, it is possible to write in your own options and views at the end of the survey.

There will be a WMF board meeting scheduled in July to discuss the branding issue, so it is important to express your views now.

Thanks - Fuzheado (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Fuzheado: I agree with the letter. How about we open an RfC on Wikidata to find whether Wikidata as a community supports the letter? ChristianKl❫ 14:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

## Export API-Commands from OpenRefine

Is it possible to export the API commands from OpenRefine, who are generated when the edits are uploaded to Wikidata. And then use a bot to run these commands instead of using OpenRefine or is there a batch mode in OpenRefine. --Hogü-456 (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hogü-456: are you familiar with the undo-redo tab, where you can export a series of operations as a JSON file? You can use this to re-apply a workflow on a new version of a dataset. This requires that the new dataset has the same structure as the original one (same column names, for instance). We are working on improving this function. There are also third-party tools to run OpenRefine workflows from the command line: https://github.com/opencultureconsulting/openrefine-clientPintoch (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

## The unexpected consequences of a consensus

A tool was deemed to be problematic because of the number of duplicate ORCiD identifiers. As a consequence the tool is no longer available and as a consequence nobody has a commitment anymore to maintain duplicate ORCiD identifiers.. I had committed myself to maintain this as the prize for having the tool. We all lost because of the consequences of this regrettable consensus. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Merged.--GZWDer (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer: What was merged to what? - Jmabel (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
When it is that simple, what was all the fuss about ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)