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

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Please use {{Q}} or {{P}}, the first time you mention an item, or property, respectively.
Requests for deletions can be made here. Merging instructions can be found here.
IRC channel: #wikidata connect
Wikidata Telegram group
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 2020/06.






a query

for deletions

for comment


for permissions


for deletion

and imports



for checkuser

Government information resources[edit]

Looking for some interesting ideas on teaching about government information resources.

Zero date year[edit]

There must not be zero year, as in WikiData there is some hybrid time format, that is not compatible with ISO 8601, that uses astronomical year numbering, such as year = 0 means 1 BCE, year = 1 means 2 BCE and so on. Perhaps such a system was rejected so that there were no errors with a shift of 1 year, it is ok. But if you enter 0-1-1 system accept it as "1 jan 0" which is wrong.

I tried to make a regexp format constraint for a date - (?!\+0000)[+-]\d{4}-[01]\d-[0123]\dT00:00:00Z, but «Properties with constraint „format constraint“ need to have values of type „String“ or „Monolingual text“.». The "range" constraint can not be accepted to, as it is intended to check if a value is in an interval, and not vice versa. Perhaps the easiest way is to tighten up a module that recognizes date entries and prevent dates with a zero year from being entered. More broadly this problem can be solved by adding "OR" and "AND" constraints, that must be used with other constraints inside.Carn (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Remember that Wikidata is about what the sources say, not about the true date. February 31 is used on gravestones, also there might be sources using the year 0. --Denny (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think there will not be very many of such cases, as well as there is few records of people whose age exceeds 150 years. There is exception to constraint (P2303) for this.Carn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Denny: Wikidata time system is very messed up. It can't record in the time string how people state a date if they state it as "circa 2019" the way it could if it would simply implement ISO 8601-2:2019. This likely leads to lot more incorrect copies of data then an inability to record the 31 February. Yes, you can add qualifiers but plenty of people don't use them and they also get stripped away when a user wants a truthy value.
February 31 should violate a constraint but the constraint likely shouldn't be set to be mandatory. ChristianKl❫ 17:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe Help:Dates#Years_BC has some info, you are interested in. --- Jura 19:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you, but phrase "Year 0 Gregorian is invalid in the database would not be exported" is not fully true:
    • ["mainsnak"] = {
            ["datatype"] = "time",
            ["datavalue"] = {
              ["type"] = "time",
              ["value"] = {
                ["after"] = 0,
                ["before"] = 0,
                ["calendarmodel"] = "",
                ["precision"] = 11,
                ["time"] = "+0000-03-02T00:00:00Z",
                ["timezone"] = 0,
    • It can be imported by lua in infocards, for example, which may cause another wave of indignation "let's get rid of WikiData in our Wikipedia sections" Carn (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
John Samuel
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Was a bee
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
ZI Jony
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints - i don't see how to do it in Module:Constraints, i see that it collects the parameters and sends them to SPARQL, which I do not understand, so i must ask - is it easy to make the property "reverted constraint" that will give a warning in case the constraint placed in it will NOT triggered?Carn (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Sounds like something that needs Wikidata:Contact the development team if you find it worthwhile. --- Jura 17:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    • As date is stored as string (although not recognized this way) - we can change how the module handles format constraint (Q21502404) on line number 116 local cFormatapplicable = {"math","commonsMedia","string","external-id","url","monolingualtext","tabular-data","geo-shape","musical-notation"} on local cFormatapplicable = {"math","commonsMedia","string","external-id","url","monolingualtext","tabular-data","geo-shape","musical-notation","time"}. Is it possible?Carn (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
What about decade 0 ? I mean, an event in the decade year 1 to year 9 ? Example : return from Egypt (Q7317265) which is said to be somewhere between 4 BC and 3 BC. Bouzinac (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Which topics would like to see Wikidata Tours for?[edit]

Hi all

As you may know Wikidata:Tours are a really great way to learn about aspects of Wikidata, however there are a small number of tours and until now no clear way to create them. Navino Evans and myself have created a comprehensive guide on how to create Wikidata Tours with a space to collaborate with others to build tours and to suggest tours you'd like to see. We hope that increasing the number of tours available for new users will be able to learn how to contribute more easily and add data more consistently making queries more reliable.

Please take a look and:

  • Suggest tours you would like to see available, this can be anything from technical aspect of Wikidata, how to create a specific kind of item e.g a person, museum etc or a specific task e.g add a date of birth.
  • Share existing guidance on different aspects of Wikidata that could be turned into a tour.
  • Start writing new tours.
  • If you know Javascript you can help transform a tour draft from a page of text into a working tour.

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be beneficial to newer editors to provide a tour on creating literary source items (i.e. creating the work level item and edition level item and linking them, to use the edition as a reference). It can be a confusing concept to encounter for the first time and I didn't fully grasp the distinction until I understood certain properties can only apply to edition level items (e.g. an ISBN or a publisher). --SilentSpike}} (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I see suggestions should be made in the table on the page linked! --SilentSpike (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@SilentSpike: thanks very much for the suggestion, I'd be happy to work with you to put together a tour on this, I don't understand the topic well at all so if you could create a draft I can edit and make into the tour format (there's a proforma for a tour linked to from the design and write sections of the instructions). --John Cummings (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Would there be any possibility of getting phab:T246814 resolved before we add more tours? We don't want to waste the time of Recent Change patrollers. Bovlb (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


In some item page history I found user:VIAFbot, last edits 2016, looked at the operators contributions and found that the last were in 2017 - except for a few edits in 2020 leading to m:Grants:Project/Maximilianklein/WHO - no, has nothing to do with the WHO. Hardware limitations in Wikidata, SPARQL timeouts, QS slow, etc. ... and then non-Wikidatians try to get some money for programming. 50 USD/h. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a proposal to get a grant to build an analysis using Wikidata data, with its primary focus being on supporting other projects such as Wikipedia. It will help answer questions those projects have been trying to understand for years. This is a good thing. I am not sure why you think that this will mean resources are taken away from the Query Service; it won't. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello @MrProperLawAndOrder, ChristianKl: I confirm what Andrew Gray says: the scope of the project is to study biographical content in Wikimedia projects, not Wikidata items. The main idea of the project is to provide statistics, with a user-friendly interface, without the need for its users to know how to write (or rewrite) SPARQL queries, or to rely on someone who knows. I also replied to some of your concerns in the discussion page of the grant, like explaining that some features this tool would provide don't exist in WDQS. On a technical note, I would like to mention that this tool would mainly rely on Wikidata dumps, not WDQS.
About the name WHO, I will just copy-paste the answer that I already gave a few days ago in the discussion page of the grant: This name is temporary and was chosen before the pandemic, as some sort of pun like "Who is in Wikimedia projects?". We still don't have decided on a definitive name, but we are looking for a friendly name (not an acronym) which is easy to remember (not like Denelezh).
About non-Wikidatians: I'm not sure how you define who is and who is not a true™ Wikidatan. For instance, is someone without a proper Wikidata user page or who never went to a WikidataCon, a real™ Wikidatan? Anyway, as already stated, the scope of this project is to study biographical content in all Wikimedia projects, not only Wikidata items. And there are several ways to be a Wikimedian: direct edits in Wikimedia projects for sure, but also organizing events, developing tools that are useful for the community, conducting studies...
Envlh (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Envlh:, you wrote "I confirm what Andrew Gray says: the scope of the project is to study biographical content in Wikimedia projects " ... but he wrote "This is a proposal to get a grant to build an analysis using Wikidata data, with its primary focus being on supporting other projects such as Wikipedia." - that's not matching. He didn't restrict to "biographical content", nor did he expand to "study ... content in Wikimedia projects". MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: I am not sure if it is a language issue but you are coming across as a pedant here. Envlh confirmed Andrew Gray's point and then provided more detail. To insist that both statements have to directly align is a waste of everyone's time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: No he didn't, and your claim about how I come across and introducing it with "language issue" is going in the direction of a personal attack. I pointed out that B claimed to confirm what A said, but A didn't say it. And no, what I quoted from B was not provided as being more detail, but connected with ":". Maybe it is a language issue indeed. How do you interpret ":" as used in the first sentence? And I didn't insist they align, so your "is a waste of everyone's time" apart of being a personal attack is not even based in any real event. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: I mentioned language issue as from previous interactions on this talk page you have misunderstood other comments that I have made.[1] I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that English may not be your first language. This is actually the reverse of a personal attack as I am assuming good faith that you are misinterpreting the comments that have been made. Misunderstandings are a common occurence on a multi-lingual project. If English is your first language then I think you are perhaps expecting too much precision in a discussion; someone makes a point and another person expands on it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Essentially it re-builds a Query Service II that can break independently of Query Service I. This can be a good thing. OTH resources allocated to Query Service I are already somewhat limited, so allocating some of the foundation's resources to rebuild another one, isn't necessarily helping to improve it for #1. --- Jura 18:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: How can money spent on that grant also be spent on the general purpose WDQS? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what is being asked for here. The pot of "money for grants" is not the same as "money that is going to be spent on WDQS". The grant money is not otherwise going to go to WDQS. WDQS is not losing out because of this. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Deletions of in use items because they do "not meet notability policy"[edit]

WikiProject sum of all paintings, strives to "get an item for every notable painting", and hundreds of thousands of paintings on Commons rely on data pulled from Wikidata. We encourage people to update the metadata about artworks on Wikidata instead of on Commons. That is why I found it quite troubling that some pages on Commons were broken because items on Wikidata were deleted due to lack of notability. More specifically I noticed pages searching for Q92121816 and Q90739444, which were deleted by User:Pasleim. I had to look up Wikidata:Notability policy again and it is unclear if they meet the policy. Those paintings do not have "valid sitelinks" (very few paintings do) so we have to rely on case #2 with "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" provision. For a painting to be notable, it must be possible to "described [it] using serious and publicly available references". In case of those 2 items, it is possible to describe them using references, like this one for Q90739444, but whoever created the item did quite a sloppy job and did not add any references or sources. So here is the problem, We can not be deleting items used by other projects to store metadata about distinct objects, even if those items do not meet our notability criteria. On Commons we have policy that if image is used on any project than it is "in scope" and will be hosted on Commons (assuming it also has valid license) I think we need something like this here that if item is used by other project to store metadada than it is in Scope. --Jarekt (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to avoid circular policies. If Commons has the policy that each image is in scope which is used on any project, and Wikidata would have the policy that items for images on Commons are notable, then vandals just need to create both image and item at the same time and thus they are notable both projects. The above mentioned items were deleted because they were created by a globally blocked user. Such actions need to be possible independent of any Commons usage. --Pasleim (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I noticed it too and started Topic:Vmw7njupwlcqez67. Pasleim messed this up and should undelete it instead of trying to talk themselves out of this, that will only make things worse. Just restore the incorrectly deleted items. Multichill (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Multichill: You have also reverted edits by the blocked user [2]. Do you prefer that I restore all items created by them and then revert their edits afterwards? What is your opinion about edits like this? Is it okay that users can create new items on Wikidata, even if their are known to create hoaxes and blatant wrong statements for years and across many projects? --Pasleim (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
The standing of the user does not have anything to do on notability of the items they create. The items were sloppily created, but we still need them and they should be improved not deleted. Is there a policy that makes items created by banned users not notable? --Jarekt (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata has currently no way to check the use of items at Wikimedia Commons. As long as this isn't possible, Commons contributors need to be aware of that and moderate their use of otherwise unused items. Commons developers are aware of the problem. --- Jura 12:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sloppy creations and sloppy deletions. The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Assuming the question asked by Jarekt is not rhetorical: No such policy exists. I see that undeletions slowly have started. Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Creator/Giambattista Pittoni needs checking when that is done.
@Jura: your remark doesn't make sense in this context because the items linked to Commons using image (P18). Multichill (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Good point. I withdraw it. The question seems to be if blocked users can continue to edit or not.--- Jura 12:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Disallowing a user from editing is the whole point why a user get blocked. If a user manages to evade a block, it is obvious that edits must be reverted and page creations deleted. English Wikipedia has a policy for this [3] but such a policy is unnecessary as it is common sense that block evasions are not tolerated. --Pasleim (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Pasleim, I am not aware of any policy allowing deletion of otherwise fine items because one of the contributors is banned. Q90739444 had 4 contributors (including Multichill), why are you deleting their contributions? It is a waste of time for other contributors to help with an item which is than deleted to make some banned user fell bad. If you need to delete someone's contributions than it is fine, just replace them with your own. --Jarekt (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I deleted only items where the banned user was the main contributor. I would say, on average 90% of the edits were made by the banned user, 9% by bots and 1% by other users. Q90739444 has one edit by BotMultichillT. Item with a greater contribution from other users I did not delete. --Pasleim (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Speaking as a Commons admin, there is really a fundamental choice here. As Jarekt says in his initial remarks, we on Commons have been encouraged to update the metadata about artworks on Wikidata instead of on Commons. If Wikidata does not consider Commons' usage a sufficient criterion to keep an item, then we on Commons should stop doing that. There is already a lot of skepticism about Wikidata (and even more about structured data for Common) from a lot of Commons users. If you want to address that skepticism, you pretty much have to accept Commons as a legitimate client whose needs must be met. If you don't want to, then please stop suggesting that Commons lean more and more on Wikidata and Wikibase. - Jmabel (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any Wiki project that doesn't have something against WD?--Trade (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Also on Commons, edits by the here mentioned globally blocked user were reverted on grand scale [4]. --Pasleim (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikidata does indeed consider Commons' data usage usually as a sufficient for notability, but there are simply cases where Commons does a poor job as well. As this should not be a rant about the Commons project and I think that both projects should drastically improve collaboration with each other, I am not going to list the details here again. Yet, sometimes a deletion seems appropriate regardless of linked Commons data; content of a problematic user, such as in this case, could in fact be such a situation.
That said, once someone offers to review and verify the deleted items, I think they should be undeleted and improved. The concept of notability in Wikidata refers to a technical form that items should have (basically being identifiable and verifiable, based on serious sources), rather than being a measure for admissibility based on intrinsic properties of the described subject. With that in mind, one can understand more easily why quite a lot of items qualify for deletion, although the described entities would certainly be admissible if only a proper item was created. —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose mass revert or deletion of edits by (whether locally or globally, whether by admins, community, or WMF) blocked/locked/banned users (they may be discussed in their own merits, as if they are made by normal users), for the following reasons:
  • Wikidata data may be in use by various projects (including those the users are not blocked, and non-WMF ones) and deleting them defeats the propose.
  • Protection, blocks, etc. should be trected as technical measure to improve the data quality. If the quality is OK there is no need to delete or revert them. This also applies to edits that can be improved latter.

In Commons there is strong consensus not to delete any contribution of blocked users. In Chinese Wikipedia (potentially positive) contributions of blocked or even WMF banned users are not removed at all, and the community treats deletion of contribution of banned as killing every child born in violation of single-child policy (Q221719). Note only WMF is obliged to WMF bans; nobody else are required to revert edits by banned users.--GZWDer (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I can't see the Wikidata items, did they display the image in the image field? --RAN (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pasleim, The deletions of items because they were edited by undesirable users, is not one of the allowed deletion rationales stated in Wikidata:Deletion_policy#Deletion_of_items. We still need those items. Do we undelete, create new ones from scratch, or should we delete statements by offending party and recreate them? How do you want to proceed? Keeping the original item ID would allow less changes on Commons, but I am OK with creation of new items and redirecting.--Jarekt (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Just undelete them, every item should be kept/deleted on their own merit, not who created them. --RAN (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I can offer to create new items by bot, if for the paintings external sources exist. Not only with focus on Pittoni, but generally for all missing paintings. --Pasleim (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pasleim: The items should be undeleted and then improved.--GZWDer (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I just discovered a whole lot more of those deleted items, removing metadata from bunch of files on Commons. Some of those files had contributions from several named users including me. So far I undeleted the metadata of the following files, deleted by Pasleim since they did "not meet notability policy", despite the fact that most of them had independent sources and all were being used :
Those few items were among 300 other items deleted for lack of notability in the same couple days. To me all of those seem notable and all were being used, so I am still concerned that there is some misunderstanding about our notability policy. I do not have time to check 300 other items but many were works by Giambattista Pittoni and our list of his works shrank considerably in last few days. Pasleim, Can you un-delete all the other items for artworks, by notable artists like Pittoni deleted by you in the end of May. That way, community can more easily decide if any of the artworks are not notable? --Jarekt (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Cannot change Q210499[edit]

Q210499 has as its Japanese link ja:電子掲示板. This is however incorrect. It should be ja:草の根BBS actually, and ja:電子掲示板 in English is en:textboard. I receive error:

Could not save due to an error. The save has failed.

It is true that the literal translation of 電子掲示板 is "electronic bulletin board". But that's not how the term is used in Japan. It's used to refer to sites like en:2channel, not old 1980's style dial-in BBS. For proof, please see ja:電子掲示板#日本語のインターネット掲示板. It is also occasionally used in a sense similar to "forum", but this is not the default meaning, and if the possibility for confusion exists, you have to explain that you mean specifically a forum by writing e.g. 非匿名掲示板. Another source would be this Yahoo! News article[5], which contains the statement インターネット社会、日本の社会文化は匿名文化なの, meaning, roughly, "Japanese internet culture is anonymous." Which is true, anonymous textboards are dominant in Japan, unlike overseas where en:4chan et cetera are the fringe and Facebook groups the norm. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol note.svg Info Affected items: bulletin board system (Q210499), Q11618061 and textboard (Q3519361). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like Wikidata:WikiProject_Informatics should explain here. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ruud Koot
Daniel Mietchen
Tinker Bell
Jasc PL
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
FWVH (passionné d'informatique et d'électronique)
Sylvain Leroux
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics

Automated finding references: new data and a distributed game[edit]

Wikidata distributed game=73.png

Hello all,

As previously announced, the Wikidata development team is working on ways to automatically extract references from external websites, so editors can check them and add them on Items. On this feedback loop page, we presented our first batch of references and collected many useful comments.

Following up on the topic, we improved our data batch based on your feedback. On top of that, we created a distributed Wikidata game called Reference hunt!. With this game, you get a suggestion of an Item and a reference based on structured data from an external website. You can accept the reference if it is good (it will then be added on Wikidata), reject the reference if it is not fitting, or pass if you are not sure.

Feel free to try the game and give us feedback on this talk page! We will also track the edits made by the game with the tag reference-game and monitor the results (how many times people click on accept or reject on a suggested reference) to analyze the overall quality of the data batch.

Cheers, Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it would make sense to show the user some context for the claim. Maybe the sentence in which the "extracted data" appears. Without context it's hard to say whether the extraction worked well.
In addition it would be great to only show users references in languages that the user can understand. My abilities to read Korean are very limited. ChristianKl❫ 11:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. Since the extraction happens using "hidden" markup in the source code of the website, it is tricky to show the exact context. But we can do some more. Unfortunately, it is not possible at the moment to only show users references in languages that they know, it's best to skip these references and let them be handled by someone who speaks the language. Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this game. It is quite cool how you could collect the data for this game. As ChristianKl suggested, providing some context for a claim would improve the game a lot. For example, if the extracted data is a date, I'll have first to open the source URL to check whether the date is a date of birth, date of death or some other date. --Pasleim (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Or worse, many users won't open the URL and think that the tool got the interference right even when it hasn't. ChristianKl❫ 17:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Pasleim, ChristianKl: we're taking this into account. Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@GZWDer:Thanks for your feedback. This has now been resolved and it should not happen anymore. Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty cool, but so far not very game-like. Do you have a game designer consultant who's working on adding encouragement and rewards and fun surprises? Especially important because properly verifying the references is slow -- there is pretty much no way around reading the source page carefully in 95% of the ones I've done so far. I have some suggestions:

  • In order to properly manage the data, you should have two yes/nos for "is it reliable source" and "does it support the claim" rather than combining them. If a significant number of players thought the reference source was not reliable, you can take it off your list. And if a certain source is getting lots of "does not support," you can re-evaluate how you extract data from that source.
Thank you for your feedback Levana Taylor! Unfortunately the Wikidata Game does not support this and we're just hooking into it. But we are looking at the declined references to figure this out anyway. Just a bit more manual work.
  • At some point in the future, you could check if the user has Babel set up and only give them references in languages which they said their ability was at least level 2. And when they log in, ask them if they have Babel and if not, have a link to how to do it. If they don't have it show them any language.
As far as we know that's not possible, but we'll look into it more.
  • If you're only hunting references for claims that currently have no references, can you also hunt for ones where the only reference is "imported from Wikimedia project"? I know that might be tricky. Levana Taylor (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
These are already being taken into account as well. - Mohammed Sadat (WMDE) (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Editing via quickstatements without batch id link[edit]

Two ways of using QS:

  1. "run in background": edits have a linked batch id "batch #34562 [...] Tag: QuickStatements [1.5]" [6], easy to track, easier to review, one can even see upcoming edits when looking at the batch page
  2. some other way: edits only have "#quickstatements [...] Tag: QuickStatements [1.5]" [7], hard to track and to review, one cannot see what and how many are upcoming. If an error is found, it is hard to find other edits made via the same method / in the same round

Is there any policy on how to edit? Why does QS allow mass editing without batch id? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As frontend batch is not stored in database, they are only identified by the time batch is created. You may however see all such batches here.--GZWDer (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
GZWDer, thank you. First column is labeled UID and the values are clickable. Why are these clickable IDs not mentioned in the edit history and linked from there? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@GZWDer: just found a reason: Waiting for several minutes QS refused to start, it said "Running" but nothing was edited. Running via browser instead of "in background" works. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

This is because of background QuickStatements is proceeded by a seperate worker (backend process) which is currently not working. @Magnus Manske:.--GZWDer (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a qualifier for named after that specifies the language used?[edit]

It feels like it would be useful for terms that have different names in different languages to specify to which language the property named after (P138) refers. Do we have an existing way to store this information? ChristianKl❫ 21:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In Sunday (Q132) it tries to do so, but the qualifier may be ambigous as it may refers to either the source language or target language.--GZWDer (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Sunday is named after mister Q177053 in Spanish? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That looks like an error. Domingo (Sunday) translates into English as "Lord" or "master" rather than "mister." It would probably be more accurate to link it to Dominus (Q1283380). I am not a Spanish speaker though, so this is more of an educated guess. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that it becomes important once an item gets names in many different languages. Whenever I see an item where the "named after" has no corresponding to any of the languages Wikipedia shows me it feels strange. ChristianKl❫ 19:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
In slouch hat (Q3750832) I've used "named after" as a qualifier on individual names along with "valid in place" and "valid in period" where I have references to support those statements. - PKM (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I added it mostly to geographic places, but yes, on classes, it's crucial. If more detail needs to be provided, lexemes would generally be more suitable.--- Jura 09:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The item Sunday (Q132) is an interesting example and at this I thought about synonyms. I think that this name for the day has a religious background in the languages where currently the item for Mister Q177053 is used. For God there are many different names. I would choose named after god. But I dont know what is the correct item for it. I think it is God in Christianity (Q825). In German the best translation, to understand the meaning from the Spanish domingo is Tag des Herrn, so in English something like the Lords day. What do you think is the best item to use here. Is the best item from the mentioned word or the item with the same meaning the right one in the section to show after what something is named. --Hogü-456 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Item for Blood and lymph[edit]

blood and lymph (Q29225829) seems to link to an Italian wikiversity article about blood and lymph. While a title that combines two subjects might be appropriate for Wikiversity it feels strange for Wikidata as an item. ChristianKl❫ 21:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Is it worth creating instance_of:Wikiversity article? Are there more? --RAN (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is specific to Wikiversity. Some Wikipedia articles aren't ideal either. "Ideal" per our view obviously ;) --- Jura 09:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Human item - WorldCat Identities ID[edit]

Q6771432#identifiers WorldCat Identities ID is listed before Library of Congress authority ID. Why? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Technically, because it's listed earlier at MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties. It's in the VIAF members section, which has been sorted alphabetically by English label I don't know where the labels come from, but Worldcat is under "I" as "Identities - WorldCat Identities ID". Ghouston (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ghouston: thank you. Not listed at where many members are shown. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Contemporary constraint[edit]

At Q17410937#P22 it violated contemporary constraint maybe because the child is born 4 months after its father died. Can someone fix it? Hddty (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Done, as yet another exception on the constraint. Ghouston (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Can't the constraint be changed to allow for fathers who might die up to 9-10 months before the birth of the child? Piecesofuk (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Some qualifier on Q17410937#P22 could be helpful to indicate it. --- Jura 09:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

IDs authors[edit]


I just noticed that Albert Mathiez (Q1343174) Treccani's Enciclopedia Italiana ID (P4223) was signed: see Q1343174#P4223. What do you think about this use case? For me it sounds useful, but I'm not sure this is the right method to fill the IDs authors.

Thanks, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC).

Mattsenate (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
KHammerstein (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mitar (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Mvolz (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pharos (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
DarTar (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
HLHJ (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Micru (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
JakobVoss (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Abecker (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Mike Linksvayer (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Kopiersperre (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Dugan (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Hfordsa (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Runner1928 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Pete F (talk)
econterms (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Sj (talk)
author  TomT0m / talk page
guillom (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
·addshore· talk to me! 17:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Ainali (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Shani Evenstein (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Skim (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ocaasi (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Trilotat Trilotat (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Source MetaData. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Airon90 ValterVB Alexmar983 Epìdosis Pietro Jura Beta16 Yiyi Sannita Camelia Massimo Sentruper Pierpao Marcok CristianNX Daniele Pugliesi (WMIT) AttoRenato Parma1983 Aborruso Sabas88 Lalupa DnaX Fausta Samaritani AlessioMela Patafisik Malore Jtorquy Nicholas Gemini Civvì Devbug Afnecors Susanna Giaccai FabC FeltriaUrbsPicta Horcrux Uomovariabile TriggerOne Luckyz

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Italy. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC). DarTar (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Maxlath (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Jumtist (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Pintoch (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC) JakobVoss (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC) PKM (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC) ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC) Ivanhercaz Plume pen w.png (Talk) 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Epìdosis 11:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Tris T7 TT me

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Wikipedia Sources. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC).

@Nomen ad hoc: In my opinion it is the correct way to indicate the author of an encyclopedia article; it is used, along with author name string (P2093) (when the author still hasn't an item), not only with Treccani's Enciclopedia Italiana ID (P4223), but also with Treccani's Dizionario biografico degli italiani ID (P1986), Catholic Encyclopedia ID (P3241), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ID (P3123) and other similar IDs. --Epìdosis 08:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ad hoc, Epìdosis: the standard way is to create an item for the biographical article, isn't it? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
... Even for the online-only encyclopedias and directories? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
@MrProperLawAndOrder: Creating an item only when there is a page on Wikisource for the encyclopedia-article, otherwise the standard is this. --Epìdosis 21:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Epìdosis, Nomen ad hoc: there is no evidence the person was the author of the id. If no item is created, then use described by to refer to the article and use the id there. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MrProperLawAndOrder: Why "there is no evidence the person was the author of the id"? --Epìdosis 21:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: I share E.'s question. Best, Nomen ad hoc (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
@Nomen ad hoc, Epìdosis: do you have evidence that the article author created the ID? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: It is indicated in the article itself. --Epìdosis 18:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nomen ad hoc, Epìdosis: the ID isn't even mentioned in the article. Only visible in URL. and in 1934 there was no internet - of course he could have created the ID, but again, no evidence. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: So, if a person writes an article in an encyclopedia and then the encyclopedia is scanned and each article receives a different webpage, I see no problem of "no evidence" in the statement that the author has written the article. --Epìdosis 19:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Epìdosis: "I see no problem of "no evidence" in the statement that the author has written the article."? The statement was that there is no evidence the author created the ID. Adding "author" as a qualifier next to the ID would imply that. But the person was an author of an article. E.g. for DtBio IDs one could write: author: GND. ... But, for unique value violations one sometimes writes "named as", this also doesn't refer to the ID but to the object ot identifies. Anyway, for this work it seems it was created before internet time, so an item for the biographical article could be created? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder: "an item for the biographical article could be created"? No, because it doesn't respect notability criteria: encyclopedia articles can be notable for items only for N1, so they should be on Wikisource; until such articles aren't on Wikisource, they can't be subjects of items. author (P50) can be used not only when the author created the webpage which contains the article, but also when the author created the article which is copied in the webpage, so again I see no problem in the present situation. --Epìdosis 19:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Epìdosis: I can not make any sense of this: "until such articles aren't on Wikisource, they can't be subjects of items." This seems to say they would have to be removed from Wikisource to get a Wikidata item. That makes no sense at all. - Jmabel (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: OK, I formulated it badly: I wanted to say that "only if these articles are inserted in Wikisource they can be subjects of items; in the meanwhile, not being in Wikisource, they can't be subjects of items". --Epìdosis 21:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Epìdosis: you might edit "aren't are"; you wrote the opposite of what you meant. I'd change it myself, but I know there is a strong norm here against editing someone else's comments. - Jmabel (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel, any opinion about it? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC).
My only opinion is that we should be consistent. Either we use author in this way when an ID refers to a work with articles, to indicate that the article to which the ID refers has that author, or we don't. I don't really care which. - Jmabel (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly articles with titels in square brackets[edit]

Currently are large number of scholary articles exist, where the item label is [wrapped in square brackets]:

SELECT ?article (LANG(?label) AS ?lang) ?label WHERE {
  ?article wdt:P31 wd:Q13442814;
    rdfs:label ?label.
  FILTER((STRSTARTS(?label, "[")) && (STRENDS(?label, "]")))
LIMIT 10000

Try it!

Following the DOI links this may be some kind of semantic for article titles translated to English. In my opinion Wikidata is able to model multilingual titles (maybe use native label (P1705) or language of work or name (P407)?) and the square brackets can be removed. Sometimes labels like [no title], [kein Titel] or [Not Available] are also used, which should also be removed.

Since lots of these items seem to created by @Daniel_Mietchen: would it be possible to remove the square brackets beforehand in the future? --Haansn08 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Actually the square brackets have a meaning. If they are dropped, the information needs to be stored otherwise.
"no title" is being fixed (I hope). --- Jura 09:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Could you clarify how the information should be stored if I were to remove the brackets? --Haansn08 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jura1: Since the actual title and language is not known, would it be ok to add language of work or name (P407) non-English (Q66724591) to all matching items and remove the square brackets from the labels? --Haansn08 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd do so (from labels, not the title statement). --- Jura 08:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev, Jura1, Haansn08: Hmm, I'd recommend the opposite approach - if we go from enLabel "[Notes on glucose]" to "Notes on glucose", we're implying the 'proper' English title is "Notes on glucose", even if there wasn't any English title originally. I think it's better to either keep the square brackets or to remove the label entirely (assuming we have the correct label in the source language).
language of work or name (P407) non-English (Q66724591) is a good idea, though, assuming we don't already have any language statement. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think removing the label entirely is a good idea. The title statement will still be there to indicate that it's a translation. --- Jura 06:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
In that case, is there really any harm in leaving the square brackets? It's a clear indication it's a translation, and it's a pretty normal convention in the field. It looks a little tidier without them, but it gives a misleading impression to anyone who doesn't think to explicitly check title statements. Andrew Gray (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fairly common to add translated titles as labels when these are available. Why would we start adding brackets? I do think it's a problem that these are copied to random languages, but that is another question. --- Jura 14:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: I've only seen this convention in PubMed. If you can prove it should apply to at least half of WD entities then we could discuss using it. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
"half of WD entities" is an absurdly high bar. - Jmabel (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vladimir Alexiev: It's certainly not confined to PubMed; until this thread, I had believed it was a pretty universal convention :-). It's used in the major English-language library cataloguing approaches, which presumably is where PubMed gets it from (I think it's in both AACR2 and RDA) - a title that isn't present in the work itself gets square brackets, both translations & descriptive titles. It's also used by APA style.
I guess the point I'm getting at is that there isn't really an "English title" for a paper like this. There's an original name in say German, and a convenience translation in English. But if we take the square brackets out, it suggests there is a "proper" English title, like you would have for a properly translated work. Normally we wouldn't expect to have someone add an English label to something only ever written & published in German. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it really does feel like this isn't the right way to do it. Anyway, I won't press the point, I just wanted to flag it up. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Applicablity of RfP voting eligibility[edit]

I have striken Nnadigoodluck's vote at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Oversight/Kostas20142 as this user does not have 100 local non-automated edits. In two recently closed RfCU requests the user Operator873 is also ineligibile to vote. Does community agree with this? On the other hand as CU and OS requires 25 supports having this requirement may let CU and OS requests a (very little) bit more difficult to succeed.--GZWDer (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Given that we have the 100 local non-automated edits for admins I see no reason why we shouldn't have the same limit for CheckUsers and Oversighters and Symbol support vote.svg Support adding it. ChristianKl❫ 09:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe the number should be over the past year. --- Jura 09:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought that numerical requirements were unnecessary back then, and still do, but I suppose it is current policy and should be respected for RfCUs. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If participation to Wikidata isn't seen as important, an alternative could be to have the votes directly on Meta. --- Jura 06:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support see also Wikidata_talk:Requests_for_permissions#Eligibility_criterias_for_voters_not_mentioned_anywhere?Eihel (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As in the discussion above. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Special:FewestRevisions to be disabled[edit]

Hello all,

We need to disable the page Special:FewestRevisions because it is extremely resource intensive and causing a huge number of errors in the database (see phab:T238199 and comments for more details).

We had a look at the number of page views and noticed that the page is not often used (phab:T245818), thus we hope that disabling it won’t cause any trouble. However, if you are using this page, please let us know as soon as possible, and tell us more about how and why you are currently using the page, so we can suggest another workflow that would allow you to do it another way. For example, this Quarry query is producing the same result as the special page.

Thanks a lot for your understanding, Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

SELECT (COUNT(*) as ?count) { ?item wikibase:statements 0 ; wikibase:sitelinks 1 }

Try it!

  • np. At Wikidata, Query server can do something similar instead (e.g. 1.6 million with the above, most frequent sitelinks: [8]). --- Jura 09:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

suggestededit-add 1.0[edit]

What is this 'feature' and can it be disabled? Or at least add a captcha to it or something. Most edits on my watchlist that come from this 'feature' are jokes, vandalisms or other incorrect edits that have to be reverted (adding a full stop at the end of the description, changing the first letter to the uppercase etc.). Wostr (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been no less than a disaster for Persian. Sometimes vandalisms sticking in wikidata and being shown to users for years Amir (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Thinking about this, it seems especially troubling that the edits with captialize the description and the full stop not being in a good description are allowed by the Android App. I think I explicitely told the developers back then that those edits are not up to our descriptions. ChristianKl❫ 14:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I'll write up a short report for the team with the latest quotes and interactions from the community around this. Ping me with any statistics, examples etc you want them to be specifically aware of. The quality filter that was built into this has not at all worked as well as we hoped. Amir, if you've got anything specific – statistics or just a short developer-friendly description of the Persian issue – I'll make sure to pass it along. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We only allow users who have previously made 3+ good (i.e., not reverted) – reverted how? I think there are at least three options to do this: undo, restore and rollback. Does it work with every option other than manual revert or only with rollback? Wostr (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Johan (WMF): Special:Diff/1167134589 and Special:Diff/1166571067 are gross insults to a living person (I can translate if you want). Some other: Special:Diff/1180773869 and Special:Diff/1166345494 and Special:Diff/1166345567 and these are only the ones I find by checking my latest 100 contributions. It's waaaay more. Amir (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup, Wostr: what parts are affected the most, descriptions, labels, anything else? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested edits are for descriptions only AFAIK. Amir (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Item fix request[edit]

Please open Karolina (Q1734206) and change "Karolina" to "Karolina (name)" on English Wikipedia entries. Thank you!!! --2001:B07:6442:8903:752A:823B:CFB6:9FF2 10:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We usually don't need brackets on items' labels, better to use description function, thx. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

child no value[edit]

Why having "child=no value" e.g. [9]? For a claim child=XYZ one can do research and add a source, but how would one verify "no value" and add a source for it? I asked the claim creator at the talk page for his source or to make transparent that is was OR, he replied but didn't gave a source yet.

Disclosure: I oppose OR.

MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Basically you are claiming that it's impossible to reduce that a person from which we know that they have 0 children (a sourced claim) has actually no child. How about focusing on actually putting effort into understanding claims before you challenge them? ChristianKl❫ 17:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree but I don't see why you need to be quite so rude about it. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm annoyed, because it reflects repeat behavior by the OP to enter discussions and complain that people (three times against me) should behave differently without investigating the issues that are at stake and instead trying to press people to classify decisions along lines that are irrelevant for Wikidata policy. ChristianKl❫ 21:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It is certainly possible to verify that certain people are childless. - Jmabel (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Jmabel, BrokenSegue: it wasn't said that the person is childless, but it was said "no value". And if it is possible to find a source, why did the claim creator not provide it on request? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • In our data model "No value" means that no value exists and a person is childless, you might want to learn about how Wikidata works. Help:Statements even makes that easy and gives an example for child:
Unknown or no values
There are times when an item has either no value or an unknown value for a given property. Depending on the property, these data values still provide important information about an item and should still be recorded in Wikidata. For example, we could say that Elizabeth I of England (Q7207) had no value for the child (P40) property, which is quite different than not recording anything at all.)
There's no duty to provide a source just because someone tries to harrass you and wants you to do work for them. ChristianKl❫ 21:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: stop your claims about intentions of others. If you cannot prove them, and the claims have a negative connotation, they are just personal attacks. The community opposes personal attacks. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes @MrProperLawAndOrder: seems annoying and unfamiliar with wikidata but people should try to remain calm in the face of it. BrokenSegue (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: Re "seems annoying and unfamiliar with wikidata" - I see no evidence that asking the question made when starting this section could lead to "seems annoying and unfamiliar with wikidata". I work on human data, and the claim child="no value" is something I have not seen before, despite having seen hundreds of pages. Of course it can exist in large quantities in WD, but it has not been applied to every human that has no child. So, I asked for the source at the talk, user did not provide it, so I went here. But if you are less "annoying and unfamiliar" than me, please share, in which cases such statement should be made to further the goals of the WMF in sharing knowledge to world. Thousands of humans can receive it. And last but not least, explain the difference from simply stating "number of children = 0" via Property:P1971. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
For your information: Child: No value is used 301 times. This query will show them:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
  ?item a wdno:P40.
  ?item wikibase:statements []. # Only entities have this...
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
Try it! --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Dipsacus fullonum, thank you! Very helpful. I made sure each occurrence also has "number of children = 0" ( = 0) and this is now used 481 times:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
  ?item wdt:P1971 ?noc.
  FILTER(?noc = 0).
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }

Try it! } MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Bots going wild - Reinheitsgebot - MnM - Magnus Manske adding hundreds of wrong claims on human items[edit]

Maybe they also add millions of correct claims, but what does the community think about hundreds of edits like [10] caused by MnM, Reinheitsgebot both operated by Magnus Manske. Here the name "James Roberts" was the same on both items, but there are also cases like

the firstnames match and the string "II" is for the person that died 1193 part of the name, for the other it is part of the description "world war II U-boat commander" - WWII took place more than 7 centuries after the other person died. Matching seems to be poorly designed.

Requests to at least deactivate certain highly trouble some MnM catalogs receive no response even after 12 days. Topic:Vme7nczx4t8iduvdMrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Afaik, all matches in MnM need to be verified by a human. If people do not verify and say "yes, that's the same", the problem is not with the bots or the tools, so this is weird to point at a issue with the tool creator (and not very constructive either). As for maintenance of MnM, I do agree it would be better to not depend on 1 volunteer, but I do think that would requires a lot of efforts infra side, and as someone whose job is exactly that, I know this take lots of time, and free time is a usually a luxury for sysadmins. --Misc (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Misc: Those examples show the limits of tools like Reinheitsgebot. There was an interest to have such tools at the begining to import data. Now data curation is more important and bots should focus on importations of curated data only and avoid to destroy the work of curation done directly in the items without using tools. Snipre (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Snipre:, I do not follow you, how is adding item destroying anything ? Again, if people are matching things that shouldn't have been matched, the problem is people, not the tools. And if you still think the tools are bad and should be improved, that's a free software, the code is on . Markus is a volunteer like lots of us are (or should be). And as someone said "Talk is cheap, show me the code". --Misc (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Misc: the point of this section is about bots going wild. No human is checking, Reinheitsgebot is just acting on what MnM says and I see no evidence Magnus is fixing his mass insertions of errors into WD. Last but not least, you claim tool creators have no responsibility for what is done with them: Tabacco industry claims this too. But why are WMF resources used for operating tools of mass disruption? Isn't there a policy by WMF that requires that hosted tools operate according to the goals of the foundation? MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder:, as far as I know, a human has to validate the matching before anything get pushed. I do not think comparing people dying by cancer to wrong edit made by a tool is a valid compraison, nor up to the standard of discussion we want here. Antagonizing people is not really productive. --Misc (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Misc: "as far as I know, a human has to validate the matching before anything get pushed" the edit summary doesn't reveal that, and I see no proof that there is really a human behind each match in MnM. The Erwin example doesn't look like a human error. I didn't mention people dying, but someone here said tool creators are not responsible for how the tools are used, without giving a source for that claim. I just wanted to highlight how questionable that claim seemed to. Sorry, if the method left a feeling of antagonizing and I regret to have done it. It was by no means meant to equate the whole situations. As I wrote in the intro, the tools may have added millions of correct claims. Re "valid comparison": One can compare anything with anything, comparing is not equating, and if one aspect is equal it doesn't mean all aspects are equal. Nevertheless I prefer I wouldn't have done it. Please accept my apologies. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I would add that errors in any process (even human driven) are inevitable and so it's important to consider whether the contribution is net-positive. It also seems the errors you are pointing out are somewhat old so it's a bit late to do anything about it other than to try to fix the errors that get through. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrokenSegue: what does age change about the process of fixing? If they are "old" by whatever definition, isn't it worse the creator didn't fix them? And the report wasn't only about the past, since MnM and Reinheitsgebot are still active, and Magnus Manske still not acting on the catalog deactivation request. There is nothing net positive about that specific catalog. DtBio re-uses GND IDs and the preferred value for these can change. No indication MnM can deprecate IDs. For DtBio it is easier just to directly compare lists of GND IDs. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
At Wikidata_talk:Bots#Unattributed_proxy_edits there was a discussion about whether bots that proxy edits for users should (be required to) identify the user, with Reinheitsgebot as one example. Bovlb (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold on, hold on, hold on. The Erwin diff you give looks like it was all done by Reinheitsgebot, but you have collapsed two edits together; I am sure this is a simple mistake, but it has the result of being very misleading.
The first edit was by a human, in a batch, mistakenly adding Deutsche Biographie ID (P7902) to the wrong item. (Fair enough - we all make errors. Even Homer nods). Reinheitsgebot saw this, and one week later added CERL Thesaurus ID (P1871) because that value was linked from the P7902 data. The bot did nothing wrong here. There was a human error, it (reasonably) assumed the human-error edit was correct, and made some edits based on it. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Andrew Gray, human marked in bold, but the edit wasn't even fully human, the value was coming from MnM (tool by Magnus)[12]. Where is the proof that "Reinheitsgebot saw this, and one week later added CERL Thesaurus ID (P1871) because that value was linked from the P7902 data."? The edit summary for Reinheitsgebot says "Created claim: CERL Thesaurus ID (P1871): cnp01149900, #quickstatements; invoked by Mix'n'match:add_person_dates" no reference to the edit of the other user. Both wrong edits coming from MnM, two properties (DtBio and CERL) and two catalogs (1619, 1640). Reinheitsgebot has shown to insert DtBio + CERL errors into an article on its own, the human-MnM-based edit not necessary for this:
Markus Ebner (Q119378):
MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Item update request[edit]

Please open Francis (Q450675) and add Club Atlético San Lorenzo de Almagro (Q218282) as supported sports team (P6758), source is . Thanks!!! -- 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done Vahurzpu (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Unremovable incorrect "Wikimedia disambiguation page"[edit] - how it can be fixed? cMateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Could not save due to an error. Malformed input[edit]

Could not save due to an error.
Malformed input: Neujalis, Juozas

I could only add "Juozas Neujalis" [13], but that is not what the source says. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

sometimes when wikidata is overloaded it just emits errors randomly. seems to accept the change now. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@MrProperLawAndOrder, BrokenSegue: You should remove leading and trailing spaces and invisible characters. See phab:T47925.--GZWDer (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


There is a bug with wikidata at the moment on at least Wikipedia. When an article is not attached to Wikidata, there is no "add links" button available, so if you want to link a new article you have to do it manually. Not sure what could be causing it. I'll also refer you to the Simple English Wikipedia talk where we have briefly discussed the issue there. ImprovedWikiImprovment (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Perceptions of Wikidata reuse -- Research invite and eliciting feedback & suggestions[edit]

I'd like to talk to Wikidata editors about their knowledge of how Wikidata is used on other wikis and outside of the Wikimedia community. Furthermore, I'm interested in understanding how newcomers learn about Wikidata's policies and guidelines. I plan to recruit participants using project chat page and sending individual invitations to editors via user talk page. The detail of research could be found here:,_values_and_motivation_structure_of_Wikidata_contributors

Feel free to give suggestions and comments! If you would like to participate (it's an approximately 30 minutes interview), you could leave message on my user talk page or fill in a questionnaire to set up an interview. Thanks! Chuankaz (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Namespaces of ... where to place a certain page?[edit]

As I am not too familiar with Wikidata I'd like to ask how to name, respectively where to place a certain page. meta:User:Manfred Werner (WMAT)/Baustelle is a collection of quiries displayed with the help of Integraality. The tables were created for the recent Museum Day Wikidata competition and I would like to keep them available at a place where they are found - I thought of putting a link at Wikidata:WikiProject_Museums#Example_Queries. But where should I put the page itself on Wikidata? --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
PS: In case you noticed - the page with the collected tables does not work as intended yet. I'm working on it. When finished I'd still like to make it available here. --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There are similar pages under other WikiProjects here, so a subpage of Wikidata:WikiProject_Museums would make sense to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Can I link all my user pages on wikipedias by creating an item here?[edit]

Chinese, English, Russian, Arabic -- Herobrine303 (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No, use old-style interwiki. --Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

unrelated Talk pages in "What links here"[edit]

Hello, can someone please give an explanation of why all these unrelated talk pages appear in --SCIdude (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@SCIdude: People added {{Item documentation}} to a bunch of talk pages, which in part displays a concept tree. It's hard to notice, but click "expand" in the lower right-hand corner of the box to see where it's linked. If you're just looking for links from items, you can filter it to just the main namespace. Vahurzpu (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Wouldn't the generation of this be a (unnecessary) resource hog? --SCIdude (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge gadget issues?[edit]

Are other people seeing the merge gadget? It disappeared for me with no apparent cause earlier this afternoon. There weren't any relevant deployments in that window, per wikitech:Deployments. I want to make sure it's not just me before I file a bug report. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see the merge gadget.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge gadget is missing on my browser as well. English Wikipedia seems to be having some current sidebar issues too (all the sidebar links jumbled up over the logo, tab display problems). Hopefully a short-lived glitch. -Animalparty (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Ha! I just came here with the same complaint! I wasted 20 minutes looking through my preferences, thinking I must have accidentally turned it off. --RAN (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Can someone merge Q95689708 and Q95690079 for me. --RAN (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu, Animalparty, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I reported this problem on Phabricator as phab:T253912. It affects only the Vector skin, if you change your skin (e.g. to Monobook) your merge gadget will be back — NickK (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, According to the Phabricator, must be fine now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a place[edit]

Hi, I would like to know how I can add a place that is not on wikapedia. It is a youth facility that is no longer in operation. I've been doing a lot of research and have every bit of information from beginning to end and beyond. If someone could please help me in this quest, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ofarrell2020 (talk • contribs) at 23:57, 28 May 2020‎ (UTC).

@Ofarrell2020:} As long as you have solid citations, sure. - Jmabel (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@jmabel, are you able to help me to get the history of this facility on wikipedia?

just click the "create a new item" button to create a new item. you might want to read the tutorials and information on what kinds of things are permitted to have entries. People will likely help you figure out how to do things but typing in the information and linking sources to the information will be left to you. Also, making an entry here and on Wikipedia are different things and have different rules/procedures. BrokenSegue (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
How would I help you get the history of an unnamed "facility" that is not on Wikipedia [in an unspecified language -- there are about 200 of them] onto Wikipedia? If you mean would I write an article on a topic in which I have no particular interest, sorry, no, I would not do that. - Jmabel (talk)

Youtube user ID[edit]

I am not sure how to enter a Youtube user ID. There is no suitable property, only the (unused) qualifier Q65028018. --RolandUnger (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know if there was already a property proposal. --RolandUnger (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
what do you mean by user id? plenty of pages have channel ids. is there not a 1 to 1 relationship there? BrokenSegue (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
If I remember right we decided against listing Youtube user IDs as they provide little value. Channels are important enough to be linked but the user IDs were not considered important enough to warrent a property especially given that there are living people privacy concerns. ChristianKl❫ 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There could be property for user id (for old channels) and channel id aka "numeric id" as in case of Twitter and Genius. Eurohunter (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism: Counter Measures[edit]

Hello all, I know that there are lots of different counter measures that prevent vandalism to make its way into Wikipedia articles. Basically, that is a combination of measures on Wikidata directly and measures in the Wikidata->Wikipedia interface.

Wikidata:Vandalism is not really helpful in finding more information on these counter measures, such as Patrolled Versions (Wikidata:Patrolled versions does not exist?!), or the possibility of protecting single statements when they are proven to be true/correct and there will not be any demand to change them in the future (for example official census data regarding population).

The measures on the interface are things like the fact that changes on Wikidata are listed on the Wikipedia watchlist, or that the patrolled versions of Wikipedia sometimes mark an article as unpatrolled when there were changes on Wikidata.

Is there a page where I can find a list of these measures? Or would it make sense to create one, as it will be helpful to convince users who are afraid of using data from Wikidata in Wikipedia articles because of potential uncaught vandalism? Thanks in advance, Yellowcard (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this.
An example which crossed my way a few weeks ago: The description of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Q151888) had been vandalised on April, 14., which is incorporated in the de-WP-article via template, an was not changed until April, 22., when I noticed the vandalism. -- Perrak (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Yellowcard, Perrak: You might want to check out Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism which lists a number of tools in active use. We could always use more people patrolling! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! -- Perrak (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

How does federation with WikiData work?[edit]

If I wanted to stand up a new Wikibase (Q16354758) specifically oriented around collecting and storing data for a specific type of item (e.g. a database of productivity software (Q7247856)), is there a path where that data would be searchable / integrated into the main Wikidata instance?

I've seen multiple references to being able to link datasets, but I'm not sure it's very clear how that process works? Can someone shed some light on it for me?

- AlphaWeaver (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlphaWeaver: There are definitely plans for this but I think it's still in early stages. See Wikidata:Federation input for a discussion here on what is needed. That said, I think you can implement federation at the level of SPARQL queries now, if that's sufficient for your needs. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@AlphaWeaver: Initial development efforts toward Wikibase federation are on the Wikibase roadmap for 2020/2021. Making it possible for one Wikibase to access via API the entities in another Wikibase (e.g. Wikidata) is something we are currently working on in a series of phases. Phase one has been underway since late February, and it consists of making it technically possible to access properties from one Wikibase to reuse in another. We started with properties for a variety of reasons, including stronger Wikibase user demand and [relatively] less technical complexity to develop. The problems we need to solve to enable users to access ~8000 Wikidata properties is on a different scale entirely than the problems we need to solve so that users can access millions of Wikidata items in a stable and reliable way. We strive to make significant progress on this topic in 2020! Samantha Alipio (WMDE) 11:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

How to specify that a given infrastructure is a proposal/project and not an operating infrastructure?[edit]

I found several infrastructures that are not already existing but are projects/proposals which may (or may not...) exist in the future. The issue is that I can't find a way to differenciate them from real operating similar infrastructures. Examples are Q67130279 or Q56063893 which are two projects of spaceports in Europe not yet agreed. I'm looking for a way to flag this fact but can't find anything on the documentation. Is there a qualifier I can add to an existing 'instance of' statement, like 'status'? Or am I supposed to replace existing 'instance of' with 'project' (or proposal? or something else?) with a qualifier 'of' 'spaceport'? Or is there a property to state that the whole item is a proposal? Thanks in advance for your help. Romain2boss (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Use state of use (P5817). --Jklamo (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. You mean a new statement state of use (P5817)=project (Q170584)? Looking at their wikidata pages I'm not sure it fits well. I mean that its is not really 'used' and the definition and examples given are about existing infrastructures that are or have been used. Can you please point me to somewhere where I can make sure that it is a wellspread use in this context? If this is the case I think state of use (P5817) definition and examples should be extended to include project state. Romain2boss (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Finally I used state of use (P5817)=proposed building or structure (Q811683) and am adding an example on property page. Romain2boss (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

tourism slogan[edit]

Would it be correct to use the property motto text (P1451) [or motto (P1546) for when the motto itself is notable enough to have its own WD item] to include city/region/country tourism slogans (with 'start' and 'end' date qualifiers when appropriate)? Here is an English Wikipedia list for every country's current tourism slogan. We DO already use this property for places' formal mottos (e.g. France (Q142) -> Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and United States of America (Q30) -> E Pluribus Unum), and we also already use the Properties for commercial advertising slogans (e.g. McDonald's (Q38076) has it for 5 different languages).
So, is it appropriate to use the Motto properties for tourism campaign slogans alongside these more formal mottos at the same time, or should they be separate with a different property? Furthermore, would that extend to cities and regional tourism campaign slogans, such as I Love New York (Q1353042)?
If it's not appropriate to 'mix' the 'formal motto' and the 'tourism slogan' of places, should "tourism slogan" be a separate property?? Wittylama (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the question is whether an entity would be likely to have both a "slogan" and a "motto", or if that's only a rare case where the same property for both would be fine? To me it seems like they would be generally clear from context so using the same property should be fine (i.e. add "tourism slogan" as an alias for the motto properties). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Pretty common to have both. E.g., for Virginia (Q1370), "Sic semper tyrannis" sends a pretty different message than "Virginia is for lovers". - Jmabel (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Could we allow both on the same property and distinguish type of slogan/motto/etc by qualifiers where relevant? This would also let us encompass things like slogans used to market to investors, which are probably different from ones used to market to tourists. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a practical example now in use - with the 'latin motto' and the 'tourism slogan' next to each other for the item New York (Q1384): Q1384#P1451. If you think that is confusing and needs to use separate properties, or needs qualifying somehow to differentiate them, please advise. Wittylama (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I've now made a batch-edit (featuring my first use of OpenRefine for reconciliation!) via QuickStatements to add everything from this table of national tourism slogans on English Wikipedia, to their respective country's wikidata items using the property motto text (P1451). It's an edit to 132 items with two edits - one for the string of text, and one for the "imported from Wikimedia project -> English Wikipedia" reference. example from the item Albania. Notwithstanding I gave the quickstatements batch a name, it still appears in the edit summary as: "#temporary_batch_1591202694827".
Once the batch has finished, the next question is how do I query for these to visualise on a map, in such a way that it brings the tourism slogans, not the 'formal' Latin mottos? Wittylama (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wittylama: This query will get "all values of P1451 that have their language set to 'en'." (I haven't written the rest of it yet). However, a problem emerges pretty quickly - on for example Q31#P1451 or Q25#P1451, we have an English translation of the "formal" motto, plus the English-language tourism motto. Whether those should be there or not is another question (a translation isn't the same as the official motto) but it points up why specific qualifiers might be helpful, especially if the official motto is actually in English! :-)
In terms of what qualifiers might work, perhaps object has role (P3831) pointing to a new item such as "official motto" or "tourism slogan"? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Object has role -> tourism slogan works nicely, yeah. Is it possible to all the statements I’ve just created - and not the other ones you’ve identified in that query - in order to mass-add that qualifier? Wittylama (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Not easily from my end (the query service doesn't know edit histories) but if you have the list you uploaded it might be possible to re-run it through QS or similar with the relevant qualifiers added? That will probably add them to the existing claims. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I've set up some examples of qualifiers at Q1370 and adjusted the constraints accordingly. This query has all the current subclasses of "motto" - we have national motto (Q29654714) which would probably do for the main ones, but no generic "official motto". Andrew Gray (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Andrew Gray: I worked out how to run a mass 'undo' on the batch (fortunately I hadn't closed the tab), added the relevant qualifier statement to all the items and re-exported to quickstatements. I ran a batch of a single item - Albania - and it worked well Q222#P1451. So, I then ran it for all the rest... and broke. Most annoyingly, it broke in an inconsistent way: sometimes not adding the reference, sometimes not adding the qualifier, sometimes neither, sometimes both. So, I 'undid' that batch too. here's the OpenRefine project if you feel like having a look at the 'schema' tab. Wittylama (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Arabic or English?[edit]

birth name (P1477) on Tony Fadell (Q92879) is reported as Arabic. It should be English. --2001:B07:6442:8903:28DE:B6FE:6343:A17A 15:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

done. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Arabic, Czech, Russian, and Serbian help please[edit]

We are trying to figure out what's the difference between Yuan Empire (Q7313) and Yuan dynasty (Q10531418). Most languages seem to think they are the same thing, but Arabic, Czech, Russian, and Serbian have two separate articles for these two historical designations.

Please help us by joining the discussion at User_talk:Nostalgiacn#Do_not_disrupt_important_items if you know any of these four languages in addition to English. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Why not just read the English labels of the P31 values? --- Jura 16:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Kinda makes sense to me: Some empires have substantial continuity even if ruled by several different dynasties, but if, in this case, the empire only existed at the same time as the dynasty, many Wikipedias would choose to discuss them together, with a redirect from one to the other. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that many Wikipedias chose to discuss one and not the other doesn't mean that it's the same concept. Ontologically the family that runs a country and the country are two different entities. ChristianKl❫ 18:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Américo Castro[edit]

Si alguien puede arreglar la ficha de Américo Castro, vandalizada por ELSONRICS que ha sustituido la información por la de un tal Eduardo Cárdenas Barajas que parece ser él mismo, lo agradeceré.--Enrique Cordero (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

La idea sería devolver la ficha al estado en que se encontraba aquí:  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enrique Cordero (talk • contribs) at 19:01 29 May 2019 (UTC).
Buenas Enrique Cordero (talkcontribslogs), he restaurado la versión del elemento justo antes de que empezase el vandalismo. Voy a avisar al usuario. Si persistiese, habría que denunciarlo en el tablón de administradores. Saludos, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Tras ver el resto de ediciones de ELSONRICS (talkcontribslogs), voy a revisarlas y revertir posibles vandalismos. Procederé a solicitar su bloqueo. Saludos, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Merging Israeli settlements[edit]

Israeli CBS municipal ID (P3466) has a bunch of cases where one settlement Id currently get's used for multiple items. I think it's likely that most of them should be merged but it's hard for me to know without knowing hebrew. Can someone who speaks Hebrew look into it? ChristianKl❫ 19:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@יונה_בנדלאק: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Which ones? (I'm not a big querying expert.) --Amir E. Aharoni {{🌎🌍🌏}} talk 06:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Amir query is now linked from Property talk:P3466. When the constraint bot runs again, Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P3466 should be larger. That could use some attention. Not sure if merging is the solution. Multichill (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
From a quick look, most of these are municipalities that were merged (in real life) into one administrative unit. I'm not sure that merging the items is the right thing. I'll take a closer look some time soon.
Is there some policy about it? Surely Israel is not the only place where this happens :) --Amir E. Aharoni {{🌎🌍🌏}} talk 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Bots going wild - KrBot - Ivan A. Krestinin replacing IDs[edit]

User talk:Ivan A. Krestinin#GND ID replacement of redirected ids - bot operator not stopping despite several users disagreeing with the removal of IDs that are still valid.

Bot breaks resolving the deprecated GND IDs via Wikidata, turning WD to be less useful. The deprecated IDs are still in use and have longterm support in the GND DB. They are kept there and not deleted, are results of merging items. MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 02:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Item for member of ministerial council?[edit]

What would be the value of position held (P39) for a person who is a member of a ministerial council -- the small group of advisers second only to the Minister? I have searched for "ministerial council member," "ministerial adviser," "government adviser," etc. to no avail. Levana Taylor (talk) 04:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Levana Taylor (talkcontribslogs), you should probably create an item for the specific position as organisations vary from one state to another. You may want to look around ministerial council (Q2932402). Arpyia (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons Special:MediaSearch or search Commons in any language[edit]

Hoi, Special:MediaSearch provides a working search interface. It is a prototype, it supports any and all languages and it is imho the best new functionality for our movement in a long long time.. What I would like for myself is a link like I have for Reasonator. I did find that you can tweak the results in Commons. For instance Mr Frank Vera is linked through "depicts" on Commons and among a lot of noise it is at least the first result.

Please have a look and please consider how it enables anyone to find pictures in any language. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


I'm generally impressed. But let me give you a few terms that didn't have great results, because that might reveal some issues to be looked into:
But on the whole: at least 4 out of every 5 searches I tried in a variety of languages got me good results. - Jmabel (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Some more attempts that didn't work well:

- Jmabel (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is the first prototype, it works after a fashion and it brought to us warts and all. It is a mix of wikidatified material that includes a "depicts" statement in Commons and texts with labels superimposed. There is no display like in Hay Kranen's SDSearch.. When a user named "Katze" uploaded hundreds of files, it prevents German people from a nice display only with cats.
When you look for something and there is no label for an item in your language, you will not find it. So add a liberal sprinking of labels and this search engine will do much better .. You have to wait for the label to make its way into the search engine though..
In my experience so far, it works best for very concrete subjects. People, taxons, building. There is no true querying available so this is as good as it gets for now.
It is a prototype and for me it is the best thing that happened to the Wikimedia Foundation since Wikidata took over interwiki links. This makes us more of a movement. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@GerardM: Do I take that to mean, "No, I don't want feedback on where it fails"? - Jmabel (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Feedback is good. Given that it is a prototype, and is branded as "it just works", it follows that it does not fail. It just does not work as we could hope for. Therefore what is needed is to find in what way it does work and where it needs improvement. There are a few things I have found:
  • there are text that should not be considered in a multilingual search/search - usernames
  • there is a need to only show the images that have been tagged as well as there is a need to show off the smarts of the search engine (I am impressed)
  • I am particularly interested in the multi lingual aspects of it all, it requires a lot more labels for it to be useful in most languages.
    • There is anecdotal evidence that an additional label for one scientist invites updates on dozens of pictures. The name used on images was different from the name in English..
    • Potentially we are talking dictionaries per language - How will that affect the performance of Wikidata? - How will that affect the performance of Commons?
    • Search needs descriptions in order to disambiguate. The quality of descriptions in Wikidata proves that they will not scale to 300+ languages. For me there is only one realistic solution; generated descriptions, preferably runtime.
  • There are user stories for different usages. Think GLAM, think Commonists working on license info, think Wikipedians looking for alternate illustrations.
    • user stories should not be in the format of "I want something for my community" it is better to say "I need to show all material provided by the "Tropenmuseum" (or any other GLAM). "I need to show all material for Batavia sorted by date". "I need all the representation of a particular artist" etc.
    • Potentially even pictures of English Wikipedia can be included so that we can start managing "fair use" material.
It helps a lot when tests include links to the search involved. One "nice to have" thing is to indicate the language the search is for.
I am expansive in my reply because feedback is so vital. I have played with the issues that were raised. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest that usernames should not be entirely eliminated, but should require a qualifier (e.g. "username:"). Often searching on a username is very useful for those of us actually active on Commons.
  • I didn't initially provide links above, but the search strings were verbatim. I've now added the links, if that's the preferred way for you to get this. - Jmabel (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for opinions on alternate accounts and Checkuser[edit]


In reference to a recent discussion your community had here, the Foundation received a community question whether we could help pull together an overview how alternate accounts are handled on other projects.

In terms of what English Wikipedia does in such cases, their policy prohibits using alternate accounts in a specific list of circumstances and explicitly allows using alternate accounts in another specific list of circumstances. English Wikipedia policy also provides for exactly how legitimate alternate accounts should be disclosed to either the community or to a Checkuser or member of the Arbitration Committee. This disclosure is handled not through an OTRS queue, but rather through privately e-mailing either the Checkuser or the Arbitration Committee's mailing list (or an individual Arbitrator via private email) hosted by the Foundation. I believe English Wikipedia uses Checkusers rather than oversighters for this purpose because Checkusers are the ones charged with handling sockpuppetry investigations and thus would be the people who would need to know if an account is a legitimate alternate account. While it is not, strictly speaking, required that a user of an alternate account notify Checkusers or the Arbitration Committee, users who do not make this notification and also do not publicly disclose their main account run the risk of being blocked as sockpuppets.

There is also an important contextual point. Unlike Wikidata, English Wikipedia has fairly elaborate conduct policies that help coordinate the mitigation of potential damage caused by such accounts. We understand that Wikidata has a draft policy closely resembling the one successfully used by the Wikimedia communities in technical spaces - for years by now. So it might be worthwhile to explore adopting both items together.

We hope this helps next time you are exploring these topics.

Best regards, --PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This is more confusing than it helps, to be honest.
But since you are now interfering here anyways, can you please *actually* provide "an overview how alternate accounts are handled on other projects", exactly as you initially wrote above? You just mentioned English Wikipedia only, and I already wrote in another recent checkuser policy related discussion that this sort of "English Wikipedia imperialism" is not particularly loved by everyone here. If you just want to force us to adapt English Wikipedia policies, you can state that explicitly, rather than by providing imbalanced input. —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @PEarley (WMF): As MisterSynergy already said, unfortunately this answer doesn't prvodie clarity.
The trust of safety team was contacted by me because it's unclear to me how this type of information can be managed is allowed to be managed. If an user disclores their secondcary account to one CheckUser/ArbCom member, what kind of channels exist for that CheckUser to share that information with other CheckUsers/ArbCom members? It seems to me that some sharing of this information is necessary to prevent the person getting blocked by other CheckUsers/ArbCom members who aren't the person who gets the initial email.
I asked "Can you as Trust and Safety Team clarify in our discussion what kind of private discussion venues are permissible given our goals of protecting the privacy better?" because I want to know how we can share such information and your response doesn't answer whether or not we can have some form of a private mailing list/OTRS queue/Wiki for sharing it.
To the extend that you understood the question as "whether we could help pull together an overview how alternate accounts are handled on other projects" is your answer you came to after deliberating a week about the question "no" given that you only answered about a single project? ChristianKl❫ 08:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

HTML elements[edit]

Recently Dhx1 has imported some basic data about HTML elements. But there's available more data in MDN that could be imported, although I have many doubts about how that data should be modelled. For example, cite (Q94100306):

Property in MDN Property in HTML LS Property used Example value
Content categories Categories instance of (P31) flow element (Q94102244)
Permitted content Content model has parts of the class (P2670) phrasing element (Q94102316)
Tag omission Tag omission in text/html Maybe has quality (P1552) <mandatory starting and ending tag>?
Permitted parents Contexts in which this element can be used Maybe new property called <can be children of>. I think this is not exactly an inverse of 'permitted content'.
Implicit ARIA role ?
Permitted ARIA roles Accessibility considerations § For authors ?
DOM Interface ?
Attributes Content attributes Maybe has parts of the class (P2670) with value <global attributes>, qualifier nature of statement (P5102) possibly (Q30230067)?
Specifications described at URL (P973) <>

Also, I wanted using use (P366) for adding a the intended use of the element, but there are cases like i (Q94100343), defined since HTML Internet Draft 1.2 for marking italic (Q344098), but was redefined in HTML5 for marking text with an special use. I was thinking in adding both values, with a qualifier; although maybe I should create another item. Thanks. --Tinker Bell 03:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Universal Decimal Classification (P1190)[edit]

Is there anywhere a list of librarys, which are using the Universal Decimal Classification?

--Nstrc (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Regensburg Classification (P1150)[edit]

Why are listed at Wikidata:WikiProject_Books#Work_item_properties only Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036), Library of Congress Classification (P1149), Chinese Library Classification (P1189) and Universal Decimal Classification (P1190), but not Regensburg Classification (P1150)?

Rather Regensburg Classification (P1150) has conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838) book (Q571) and magazine (Q41298).

--Nstrc (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Proposal B can be viewed just as a transition towards the elimination of library-classification properties on publications, in order to supersede them with zentrales Thema (P921)."
I totally disagree with the idea, that only main subject (P921) should be used for categorising the content of books (or essays). A certain subject can be analysed by different academic disciplines, e.g. there is a difference, whether a book, which deals with soccer, is classified as
* UDC 79 "Recreation. Entertainment. Games. Sport" (cfr. LCC GV "Recreation. Leisure")
* UDC 33 "Economics. Economic science"
* UDC 94 "General history" (cfr. LCC D "History")
* UDC 34 "Law. Jurisprudence" (cfr. LCC K "Law").
Rather than aiming to eliminate library-classification properties on publications, I would prefer, I could use not only Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036), Library of Congress Classification (P1149), Chinese Library Classification (P1189) und Universal Decimal Classification (P1190), but also Regensburg Classification (P1150).
Cfr. as well (unfortunatly in German): Wikidata:Forum#Unterschied LoC-Klassifikation - RVK.
--Nstrc (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
--Nstrc (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Dewey Decimal classification is of somewhat limited usefulness because in the old days, a lot of libraries did their own assigning of classifications to books so they'd vary widely. I don't known whether that's still current practice. But I can certainly see replacing that one with main subject (P921) -- legacy being the only reason it's kept. For LOC, though, you can look up what the Library of Congress itself uses, and so fewer libraries would disagree with it. From what Nstrc says, it sounds like all German libraries use a unified Regensburg classification. So yeah, in general classifications are useful info to have and are not at all the same thing as main subject (P921). Why not keep identifiers for classifications used by major national library systems? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Classification of edition items?[edit]

Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036), Library of Congress Classification (P1149), Chinese Library Classification (P1189) and Universal Decimal Classification (P1190) are only mentioned at Work_item_properties, but not at Edition_item_properties. This makes sense, if the different editions have the same content.

But sometimes there are considerable enlarged or shortend editions, which would require different classification for different editions. - Or should be such "editions" rather classified as 'works' for its own?

--Nstrc (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Mmmh. -
--Nstrc (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, since there are three threads on this topic and my English is limited I can't follow. Please ask Wikidata:WikiProject Books. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Viswaprabha (talk)
Maximilianklein (talk)
Jane023 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Alexander Doria (talk)
Ruud 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Jayanta Nath
Yann (talk)
John Vandenberg (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Danmichaelo (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Ravi (talk)
Mvolz (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
PKM (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Revi 16:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Almondega (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Jura to help sort out issues with other projects
Skim (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Marchitelli (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Alexmar983 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Chiara (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Ivanhercaz | Discusión Plume pen w.png 15:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
PatHadley (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Erica (ohmyerica) (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Mauricio V. Genta (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sam Wilson 09:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sic19 (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
MartinPoulter (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
ThelmadatterThelmadatter (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Zeroth (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Beat Estermann (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Shilonite - specialize in cataloging Jewish & Hebrew books
Elena moz
Oa01 (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Maria zaos (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Wikidelo (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Mfchris84 (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Mlemusrojas (talk) 3:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
salgo60 Salgo60 (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Dick Bos (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Marco Chemello (BEIC) (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 徵國單  (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Alicia Fagerving (WMSE)
Louize5 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Viztor (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
RaymondYee (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Merrilee (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Kcoyle (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Tris T7 TT me
Helmoony (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Shooke (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
DarwIn (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I am Davidzdh. 16:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Juandev (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Buccalon (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
MJLTalk 16:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Dcflyer (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Susanna Giaccai (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Asaf Bartov (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Msuicat (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
SilentSpike (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
TheFireBender (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Jumtist (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
DrLibraryCat (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
ShawnMichael100 (talk) 20:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Lmbarrier (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Rosiestep (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Clifford Anderson (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Discostu (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Subodh (talk)
Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Алексей Скрипник (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
MLeonStewart (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
ArielBritoJiménez (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Books

: Cfr. as well above Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (P1150).
--Nstrc (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
PS.: Sorry, I didn't intend to create such long list. Can someone correct my syntax, please?
--Nstrc (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
See also Wikidata:Forum#LoC-Klassifikation and Wikidata:Forum#Unterschied LoC-Klassifikation - RVK. Opening more threads does not help with clarification. --Kolja21 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

True duplicates[edit]

Yesterday and today I've run some batches with QuickStatement and it created quite a few true duplicates, e.g. Cerastium murale (Q95915220) and Cerastium murale (Q95915221). Is there a problem with the database?

I can find and merge items I created, but is there a way to query all current true duplicates? --Robot Monk (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Robot Monk: It does appear that it's a database issue. Normally it's impossible to have two items with the same label and description. I get "Item QXXXXXX already has label "Cerastium murale" associated with language code en, using the same description text." when trying at Special:NewItem (tested on test Wikidata). --SixTwoEight (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
See Topic:Vkhd578n4cv9ndew.--GZWDer (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If it's a lot of items, and you can generate a list somehow, you can put a request at WD:RBOT to get them merged. Edoderoo (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to all, already merged them. --Robot Monk (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Restrict editing of properties to autoconfirmed users?[edit]

Over the last four months I've protected a few highly visible properties so that they can only be edited by autoconfirmed users. Specifically, in order of protection date: country of citizenship (P27), birth name (P1477), end time (P582), family name (P734), short name (P1813), reference URL (P854), founded by (P112) and logo image (P154) - see the log for the exact dates. This was based on erroneous anon edits to those properties that I spotted via my enwp watchlist. I think the protection helped reduce the erroneous edits (like this), while not preventing regular editors from making changes. I don't think that full protection is appropriate, but this light protection seems to help.

I think it would be beneficial to protect all properties in the same way. The main downside is probably that we won't get translated property labels from new editors, but I'm not sure how often that happens.

What do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As a result of such a decision, let us not forget that Wikidata:Property creators should be changed accordingly:
Administrators may add the property creator flag to the accounts of users who:
are generally always trusted members of the community, preferably with at least some history in working with properties, and
have shown a satisfactory understanding of how Wikidata works, especially regarding the property namespace, datatypes, and related concepts.:::Users should generally not be made property creators solely or primarily based on their work on other projects; property creator is currently the only right unique to Wikidata, and this should be taken into consideration when requesting or granting it.
In general, property creators should be rollbackers before the flag is assigned, but they must be autoconfirmed.Eihel (talk) 07:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The paragraph isn't very precise, but I think as a community we generally see the bar for giving out the property creator right a lot higher then auto-confirmation, I don't think adding a requirement for that right adds much additional information. If we reword that paragrpah I think it should say "Trusted members with regular participation on property creation discussions." ChristianKl❫ 15:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as well, especially because it takes a while for label fixes to propagate, and so accidental edits persist. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • We used to have protection in place for edits of en labels. --- Jura 06:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, either for all properties, or alternatively a rule like "once a property is used on more than a thousand items" (like many wikis do with templates) or "a month after property creation". The first approach would be very simple to manage and easy to understand, the second and third would give us some time to get labels and things sorted out before light protection kicks in. One bonus side-effect is that this might help reduce server load a little - changing the label on something like P31 or P18, even if it's quickly reverted, means a huge number of pages needing updated. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The data stored about properties needs to change far less often than that stored on items, and is typically metadata having no direct effects on information on actual entities.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Snipre (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The properties' ability to give life to entries also gives them so much potential to cause a lot of damage. ミラP 17:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While it's nice to have more labels for more language, partrolling changes in lower-used languages works less well. It's better for new users to learn how Wikidata works and which labels are good by interacting via doing less central changes then property changes. ChristianKl❫ 17:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Maybe we should use AbuseFilter for protecting and suggesting the usage of {{Edit request}}? Bencemac (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Properties (and anything else besides main space items) don't have the sitelinks redirection problem, and there are a lot of subtleties in their constraints, formatter URL's, etc., so restricting changes to autoconfirmed users makes a lot of sense to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • super Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong supportEihel (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Epìdosis 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely. - PKM (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On a technical level, I expect that this would be implemented using mw:Manual:$wgNamespaceProtection as is currently done to prevent the Query: namespace from being edited by anyone. While the abuse filter could technically be used to implement this, it would perform much worse than this more native solution and slow down the parsing of all edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Bencemac, Jasper Deng: If this got sufficient support, I was expecting that I would have to implement it either manually or by pywikibot. I've started phab:T254280 about what would be the best technical solution here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daask (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; we have relatively few edits by anons and new users on property pages, which I think are usually watched by enough users to revert bad edits. Let's keep it open for everyone, as there are indeed useful edits being made by non-confirmed users. Also mind that we do not have a proper "edit request" system in place. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: In the Item-declaration-value aggregate, I prefer that a newbie is interested first at the ends of the set than at what links the two. There is so much RC that "goes between the drops" and the properties are increasing, this has already been revealed since the beginning of this year, but I have been thinking about it for a long time: autoconfirmed is such a stage easily reachable. —Eihel (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    This is a dangerous reasoning; you can pour excessive semi-protection policies to a large amount of Wikidata content as there is practically always another thing which is "easier" to do for "beginners". I prefer to have Wikidata generally open to be edited by everyone, including newbies and IP users, except for cases that require temporary protection due to actual issues related to that very affected page. Mind that there has already been the RfC "semi-protection to prevent vandalism on most used Items" which was set up with a similar precautious intention, and left us with a totally unworkable policy that nobody can enforce, and a large amount of items whose indefinite protection status is extremely difficult to review even after one year has passed since that RfC has been concluded. ---MisterSynergy (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    @MisterSynergy: Please look through the histories of the properties I linked to, they were seeing substantial anon vandalism before I protected them. They were being reverted, but not before the vandalism was seen on other wikis, which damages Wikidata's reputation within the Wikimedia projects. I'd much prefer that everything was open to everyone to edit, but since we have to use server caching, that doesn't seem to work right now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    I don't mind protecting property pages that are vandalized often, and consequently reviewing the block regularly as well. I just don’t see the point in a systematic protection of thousands of property pages when we talk about some hundreds of edits per month in total by anons and newbies in that namespace. It is not helpful to provide only some extreme cases here for review when most properties that would be affected by your proposal never see any vandalism. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Less vandalism, more reliability.--Jklamo (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I suppose we would indeed need some evidence that this is actually justified, given the general WMF principle that sites are freely editable. Clearly, it's an error to think there is any vandalism on formatter urls. --- Jura 08:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Jura1: Look at the history of the examples I gave. In particular, changes to country of citizenship (P27) were regularly being reverted until I semi-protected it. I don't like protecting items, but they are really visible. While formatter urls don't currently get vandalised, they could be (and potentially with a big impact), and we don't have any way to only protect labels. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Mike Peel: we have means to protect en labels, it just needs to be updated, similar to what is being done for formatter URLs. I think there is a difference between protecting some aspects and protecting an entire namespace. Bear in mind that WMF sites are meant to be edited freely/wikily. --- Jura 20:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      @Jura1: Can you demo it somewhere, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Have a look at the relevant filters. --- Jura 20:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        Sure, where should I look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • It's #73 and #101. --- Jura 06:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
        • If we used edit filters for this, I'd strongly recommend going beyond just English labels - we often have similar kinds of issues in Spanish, plus occasionally other languages as well. Aliases/descriptions are often altered in the same way, although that has less of an immediate impact on readers of the site. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • English labels get edited when users can't figure out the user interface. --- Jura 13:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And I would also advocate for protection of common items that are the target of said properties (e.g. Q5 etc). Vandalism confuses me and if it happens across domains then it gets hard to track down too. Jane023 (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Wostr (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Simply keep a keen eye on properties you are interested in. --Succu (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Facilitate discussing an edit[edit]

Hello. The history tab of an item contains next to each edit an undo and a restore link. When clicking either one is offered a text field where one can explain the action. Confirming the action notifies the editor who performed the original edit. This workflow, once discovered by an editor, makes it easier (if not even incentivizes) to ask about a not-so-obvious edit by undoing it.

How about a discuss link next to each edit which:

  1. creates a new section on the item's talk page
  2. links to the edit
  3. notifies the user who did the original edit

Thanks. Toni 001 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I would also add on my wishlist: "be able to see the history, but just for 1 property". It is kinda tedious to check the whole history when you just want to know when 1 property was changed, and filtering didn't look obvious to me (maybe there is a trick I do not know). --Misc (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support for "be able to see the history, but just for 1 property" --Haansn08 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Discussing an edit seems to me like a general discussion feature that should be of a task of the working group that takes the next stab at reimagining discussions on MediaWiki and not a WikiData specific thing. ChristianKl❫ 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #418[edit]

Alert - bot malfunctioning on topic adding VIAF to GND humans[edit]

@Epìdosis, Kolja21, MisterSynergy, Ymblanter, ArthurPSmith: Can someone immediately stop it? User not listening to request MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

At least 66 edits like [14] MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

list for "p://" MrProperLawAndOrder (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Image attribution text[edit]

I like the new property attribution text (P8264). Is there any way to find images already used in WD that should have this property added? - PKM (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I think it's meant for Commons, not Wikidata. Commons currently has no query server to find uses. --- Jura 08:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


I noticed that english wikipedia have a tag called "possible BLP issue or vandalism" and i was wondering if this tag exists on WD as well. --Trade (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

We could create the tag, but the point is that on ENWP it is added by three specific edit filters, and those filters cannot readily be applied to Wikidata content. If you have a sample set of edits that reflect similar problems, we could try creating edit filters.  Bovlb (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
"If you have a sample set of edits that reflect similar problems, we could try creating edit filters." tho edits i had in mind have been supressed for obvious reasons. --Trade (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I think the tag should be edits on an item that is likely to be about a living person of a statement with a property that has living people protection class (P8274). ChristianKl❫ 08:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Bovlb I was referring to edits such as this. I have also seen instances where someone would add words such as "chIld abuser", "sexual predator" and similar phrases into the descriptions of BLP. Quite problematic to say the least@Bovlb:--Trade (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)-
@Trade: This sounds like an obvious extension to the existing Special:AbuseFilter/11.  @DannyS712, YMS, Matěj Suchánek - Bovlb (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Needles to say labels should be covered as well. --Trade (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we really advice people to edit in Norsk?[edit]

Since some time Norsk (no) is one of the languages I am suggested to edit in. (The others are Swedish, English and Brittish English) and I am a little confused here. Shouldn't we prefer people to edit Bokmål (nb) or Nynorsk (nn) instead of Norsk? I am not saying that we never should be allowed to edit in Norsk, but I would prefer that it is done by those who know what they are doing. A random user he might think Norsk (no) is the language of nowiki, when it instead is Bokmål (nb). (Nowikisource on the other hand may have texts in Norsk). 62 etc (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The key question is why you get suggested Norsk(no). I would expect it's due to your browser sending that this is one of the languages you speak. ChristianKl❫ 09:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Somehow the general change from "no" to "nb" isn't done everywhere, so in some contexts "no" appears instead of "nb". It shouldn't actually be possible to add "no" labels, but I might be mistaken. Contact_the_development_team might be able to fix it. You can explicitly select what you get with boxes on your user page. --- Jura 09:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @ChristianKl: I do not speak Norsk, I do not even always understand spoken Norsk. But I can without problem read most texts both in Bokmål and Nynorsk. In my work here with Norwegian municipalities, I have visited many webpages in different versions of Norsk, but not changed any settings in my browser. (Believe me, it gets much worse after a machine translation, than reading it directly.)
      • @Jura1: I know I can change the settings by adding #Babel to my user page, I am talking about why random users (without #Babel) is adviced to edit Norsk.
      • Earlier, I was getting Swedish, English, Finnish and Meänkieli. All of these makes sense based on where I live. Bokmål (nb) isn't very farfetched either, geographically speaking. But Norsk should never be an option if you not explicitely desires to edit it. 62 etc (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Help explaining difference between P279 and P31 in hungarian[edit]

Hello, as there is no hungarian translation in this page, could anyone explain to Palotabarát (talkcontribslogs) why he should not redo what he put on for instance on this Q : USA Former Consulate in Tabriz (Q20986676) ? Thank you ! Bouzinac (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, it was a typo. Bouzinac (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Bouzinac: I understand what you are writing, please understand that the type of diplomatic mission should be included in this point. Undoing the edit will not resolve the issue. It’s more important to be in it — even if you’re in the wrong place — than not to be in it.

We have talked about this before, I wrote even then: be sure to have a consulate, a consulate general, a commercial representation, and so on. Palotabarát (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Using Wikidata to create COVID-19 per capita data table[edit]

I'm trying to create w:Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Per capita using Wikidata data (see my current early efforts at the sandbox, and lmk if you'd like to help). I'm having trouble retrieving the most recent case count, though, since unlike country population data, the most recent value doesn't seem to be ranked as preferred. How do I get that to happen? Sdkb (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Integration of 20th century press archives (Q36948990)'s country/subject archives metadata[edit]

A draft for the integration of the large archives' metadata (> 280.000 articles in 9000 digital folders) into Wikidata is outlined here, linking to details of the proposed data structure. Feedback is very welcome - cheers, Jneubert (talk) 09:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is meant not as a topical item ("real world object"), but represents the folder for the clippings (= digitized files) collected under that designation. These folders are sometimes rather artificial and may contain material about different items (e.g., 1918-1920 flu pandemic (Q178275), cholera (Q12090) and other diseases). Jneubert (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan[edit]

In the recent-ish history of Afghanistan we have a series of separate items: Kingdom of Afghanistan (Q1138904) replaced in 1973 by Republic of Afghanistan (Q1415128), then in 1978 by Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (Q476757), in 1992 by Islamic State of Afghanistan (Q1415585), and in 2002 by Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan (Q4689103). In 2004 that was replaced by the Islamic State of Afghanistan, but the item we currently use there is Afghanistan (Q889), which isn't really the modern state specifically, but a much more abstract representation of a wider concept of "Afghanistan" (see, for example, the multiple "inception" dates it includes). This means, for example, we get statements like:

⟨ Afghanistan (Q889) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ head of state (P35) View with SQID ⟨ Amānullāh Khān (Q153620) View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
start time (P580) View with SQID ⟨ 9 June 1926 ⟩
end time (P582) View with SQID ⟨  14 January 1929 ⟩

even though that seems like it could/should live on Kingdom of Afghanistan (Q1138904) instead or as well.

I can think of a few possible options here:

  1. We create a new item specifically for the Islamic State of Afghanistan as the modern sovereign state, and Q889 can be for the more abstract concept of "Afghanistan". Information about political concepts like Head of State/Head of Government etc should then be moved to the relevant predecessor items.
  2. We create the new item for the Islamic State of Afghanistan for continuity with the other versions, but those items shouldn't really contain much data: specifically all the HoS/HoG info etc should live solely on Q889 for all periods
  3. A combination of #1 and #2, where we duplicate information across both the historic items, and Q889
  4. We declare that Q889 *is* the modern Islamic State of Afghanistan, and anything anachronistic be moved to the predecessor items
  5. Q889 remains a mixture of everything either because it's not actually a problem or confusing, or because it is, but we don't really have a good solution
  6. Something else entirely

My preference is probably for #1 or #4 (at least until someone else comes up with a much better #6), but #5 (the current situation) seems like the worst version. Thoughts/suggestions/alternatives? --Oravrattas (talk) 10:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

That's unfortunately a problem that we have with many (most?) countries. While we usually have separate items for their predecessor states, the items for the current countries are almost always mixing the current iteration and the general concept of the country (including its prior governments, its current and former territories, the culture and everything that ever happened within the boundaries of the current country all the way back to the dawn of time). IIRC there have been various small-scale discussions, but nothing that resulted in actual solutions or efforts to tackle this problem. --Kam Solusar (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Seems like we need something like the work/edition solution from FRBR? :) ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that's an interesting analogy. I suspect a key part of the issue here is that we're largely reflecting that Wikipedias tend to use the main country page for the wider 'general concept' as well as the current sovereign state. So the question is how to best untangle those. With a bit more thought, I don't think #4 above would really make sense, as we'll need to keep the broader item as the target for all those links. But if we already have separate items for most "editions" anyway, making sure we also have one for the current incardnation, and moving lots of the data out into those (#1 above), sounds workable. --Oravrattas (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I think a possible solution is to identify when a state is considered as a "continuing state" in international politics, i.e., generally inherits things like treaties (including membership of international organizations, such as the UN), debts and citizens from the predecessor entity. Typically, a change of government or name, or change of territory, is not sufficient alone to invalidate the succession. Then there should be a Wikidata item to represent the continuing state, until such time as non-successive discontinuity is found (such as when an empire splits into multiple successor states). Wikipedia will typically have a separate item for each historical name that a state has been known by: these can be marked in Wikidata as historical periods of the continuing state instead of separate states in their own right. Ghouston (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ghouston: I suspect I'm missing something in your suggestion, but I'm not really seeing how that helps with the overarching "Bonnie-and-Clyde problem". As you say, there'll pretty much always already be separate Wikidata items for the historic versions of a state/country, and deciding that some of those should be marked as something less than an actual historical country (Q3024240) (or whatever better set of items we come up with) is certainly plausible. But we're still left with the core problem that the primary item for the country is doing double duty as being about the current sovereign state as well as the more abstract concept of the country. I think the deeper question is really much more about how we untangle those two concepts, rather than how we decide which countries to do that for or which historic versions to move which claims to. --Oravrattas (talk) 07:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
It's common enough for Wikipedia articles to have a main topic, but to also digress into related areas. I think separate items for country and state would be very confusing, which would you link to in any particular situation? Is the distinction between a country/state, as an area within a border, and the entity that governs it, e.g., United Kingdom (Q145) and Government of the United Kingdom (Q6063) sufficient? Ghouston (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The immediate context of the question for me is about office held by head of government (P1313), head of government (P6), office held by head of state (P1906), and head of state (P35), but there are lots of other properties (e.g. flags/anthems/emblems/mottos etc) that generally also change at these succession points. We can, of course, have the entire history of all these things on the main item for the country, with suitable start/end dates, but then the question remains whether we also duplicate them onto those earlier items as well, or leave those items largely bare? Or do we have the older versions on the separate items, and only include these details on the primary/current item from when it was last 'split'? To take a practical example, which item or items should have the claim: office held by head of state (P1906): King of Afghanistan (Q17323565)? I would certainly expect to see it on Kingdom of Afghanistan (Q1138904), but should it be on Afghanistan (Q889) and if so is that as well, or instead of? Or do you think that shouldn't live on any of the country items at all, and instead be moved off to separate government pages, or elsewhere? --Oravrattas (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to put these things like flags on both the main item, with start and end dates, and on the item for the historical name. Maybe you have a state that has changed names and flags a few times, but it's still recognised as the same state. I doubt that the flag etc., really need to go on the item for the government too, but such duplication happens a lot in Wikidata. Andy Foster (Q39073800) is declared to be mayor of Wellington City on 3 different items (and could be 4 if we made him the incumbent of his position.) Ghouston (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Generally I'm fairly happy with duplication: saying the same thing in different ways can be a useful "double-entry bookkeeping"-style error detection check, and there are often also subtle distinctions between the different statements (that become clearer, for example, where the function of an office changes in the middle of someone's term in it). Such cases generally also make it easier to query the data, as you can get at what you want from different directions, so to speak. The sort of duplication you're proposing worries me a bit more, however, where we would add exactly the same statement across several items, and thus many queries will bring back both, and you'd need to know how to filter some of the entries out. To stretch the Bonnie-and-Clyde analogy perhaps a bit too far, it also seems odd to me to say that the solution is to have a "Bonnie and Clyde" item, and a "Clyde" item, but not a "Bonnie" item. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Republic of Ireland, and the Russian Federation, for example, are well defined entities that are significantly different from the wider concept and history of "Afghanistan", "Ireland" or "Russia". Having Wikidata items for the latter concepts, but not the former, seems decidedly odd, and leads to all sorts of inconsistencies and anachronisms in the data. I certainly agree that splitting them out could potentially be confusing in some scenarios, but sidestepping those by pretending that there's not a difference doesn't seem to be a great answer, and as ArthurPSmith suggests, the work/edition split in books is a useful parallel here. That certainly also has similar problems, where editors often add statements at the wrong level: but that's generally fairly easy to fix up, and we gain much more clarity and consistency in both modelling and querying.--Oravrattas (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
In Wikidata, it seems to me that only the main country item would be needed, with start and end dates for the things that have changed. The items for the old names would be just for the sake of Wikipedia, and for templates on those Wikipedia articles. It generally wouldn't be desirable to link other Wikidata items to them, or to query them. The items woudn't turn up in queQ15180ries if they were declared only to be "historical periods", or some such thing, instead of representing separate countries. Ghouston (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes a country does simply change its name without the entity really changing (e.g. North Macedonia, Eswatini), but that's not really what we're talking about here. It seems much too reductionist to to suggest that the changes from the Kingdom of Afghanistan down to the modern Islamic Republic of Afghanistan are merely that, and there weren't actually distinct states in between. Even purely for the purposes of serving Wikipedia, never mind wider considerations, wouldn't it make sense for Republic of Dahomey et al to be able to populate their infoboxes from direct lookups on Republic of Dahomey (Q798431) rather than indirect date searches against Benin (Q962)? And of course with something like Russia (Q159) it gets even trickier. Should it have all the data for Russian Empire (Q34266) and Russian Republic (Q139319)? What about Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Q2184) and Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (Q2305208), or even Soviet Union (Q15180)? --Oravrattas (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes it will make sense to treat them as continuing entities, and sometimes as newly formed entities, especially when the formation is the result of a merge or split. I'm not sure that this is really a decision that Wikidata can make on its own: it should simply reflect how the change has been treated in international politics, e.g., whether a state has been able to continue to hold a membership in bodies like the United Nations, or whether it had to apply as a new entity. Wikipedia articles are a different issue: Wikidata usually has an item for any Wikipedia article, and the data on that item can be used to feed its templates, but such items don't need to be treated as representing separate countries. Ghouston (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The principle that's typically used now is that countries get additional Wikipedia articles and hence Wikidata items for every name change. So we only have one item for the United States, since it never changed its name, but we have several for the United Kingdom and Afghanistan and a couple for the Republic of Ireland. Major changes in territory are typically ignored, in cases where a state retained the same name. Ghouston (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there's a distinction between continuing states, such as the UK through the independence of the Irish Free State, and successor states, such as the Soviet Union and Russia. If I remember correctly, Russia was considered the successor state of the Soviet Union, and was able to take over the UN seat and privileged position on the Security Council. The UK on the other hand just continued as though nothing had happened. The newly created states, Ireland, Ukraine, etc., had to start from scratch in creating new treaties and memberships. Ghouston (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm having a lot of difficulty in working out what you're suggesting looks like in practice. Would you mind spelling out in a bit more detail what that would actually look like for the the specific case of the historic office held by head of government (P1313) information for Ukraine (Q212), Russia (Q159), and Soviet Union (Q15180)? That is, if we want to have enough information to be able to replicate the sorts of lists that are on List of heads of government of Russia, List of prime ministers of Ukraine, and Premier of the Soviet Union, against which country item(s) should each of the relevant offices (Prime Minister of Ukraine (Q1145714), Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR (Q62113182), etc), be listed? --Oravrattas (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Mergence of reality television and reality show[edit]

Reality television and reality show might be a same thing. In different interwikis this term is called either "reality television" or "reality show". For example in English Wikipedia article is called "reality television" and "reality show" is just a redirection to the main article. What do you think? --Ivannnnl (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • That's not true that all interwiki's have articles for either one or the other. The French Wikipedia has articles for both. The items already document this by having the different from (P1889) statement. ChristianKl❫ 12:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
...although in this case, I think the case could be made for said to be the same as (P460). —Scs (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I have the impression that frwiki sees one as a subclass of the other. It would likely be benefitial to define the items better so that it's clear which one should be used when instead of going the said to be the same as (P460) route. Unfortunately, my French is awful. ChristianKl❫ 13:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:fr is doing the difference between the 2 concepts:
  • reality television: type of documentaries, talk show,... this can be described as an emission about the normal life of people, in their original environment...
  • reality show: emission about people put in a particular environment and the emission shows on air what happens.
Snipre (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Musixmatch track ID (P6742)[edit]

How to obtain this id? Eurohunter (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: It appears to be only found in the page source. In the source, search for "og:track_id" and you should find it. The property proposal has a bit more detail. Vahurzpu (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

facet of (P1269)[edit]

What is the reverse property for facet of (P1269)? Eurohunter (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

do all properties have reverses? I'm not sure this one should have one. BrokenSegue (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There's no inverse property for it and the inverse label is "has aspect". Whenever an inserve property exists it will be listed on the page of the property. ChristianKl❫ 23:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

96,000,000th item passed[edit]

We just passed Q96000000, but the item itself is AWOL; see Q96000000 & Norbert Krisztián Kovács (Q96000001). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Aren't we at 87,105,000+? Eurohunter (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The Q-ID counter is at ~96.00M; according to my counting, there are actually ~86.81M items, ~2.87M redirects, ~1.40M deleted items, and ~4.93M Q-IDs that have been omitted (i.e. the items have never existed, just as Q96000000). The number given on the Wikidata:Main Page, currently ~87.11M, is close to ~86.81M, but for some reason somewhat different—I have no idea how it is calculated. :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

QuickStatements thankyou[edit]

Thanks to whoever tuned up QuickStatements. It's now running quickly and without errors again. Long may that last. Levana Taylor (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Probably because the other half isn't. --- Jura 07:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Getting number of cases (P1603) to rank most current figure as preferred[edit]

How do I change number of cases (P1603) so that it will automatically rank the most current figure as preferred? This is so that I can import the most updated case count to w:Template:COVID-19 pandemic cases/Per capita. Pinging TomT0m (talkcontribslogs), who I see wrote a related page. Sdkb (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Some kind of bot / script, I guess. Ghouston (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
See Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_COVID-19/Data_models/Outbreaks#Should_we_skip_fiddling_with_preferred_rank_until_the_outbreak_is_over? about ranking. --- Jura 07:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to set up a property to do this automatically, but as Ghouston suggests, in principle a bot script should be able to do it reasonably simply (look at all values, pick the one with the most recent date, set as preferred, set any other preferred to normal). Andrew Gray (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)