Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut: WD:PC
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.
Requests for deletions and mergers can be made here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2015/03.

Extortion or Blackmailing?[edit]

Can someone please me to clearify the distinction between extortion (Q6452087) and blackmail (Q34284) and sort out the messy interwiki? /ℇsquilo 19:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and I did not unterstand languages. I have looked at de,fr,en,sv: Google translator says that fr and de Chantage blackmail (Q34284) subclass of (P279) extortion (Q6452087) Chantage is Extortion with a distrubution of informations about the victim of the Chantage. w:sv:Utpressning seems to be similar to fr/de Chantage, but I am not sure if the sv:Utpressing meanings includes extortion with other harm like violence too. blackmail (Q34284) seems to be splitted. I guess en Blackmail ist not equal to fr/de Chantage. --Diwas (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC) PS: w:it:Estorsione blackmail (Q34284) seems maybe similar to en:blackmail blackmail (Q34284) or to en/de/fr/... extortion (Q6452087) but not to fr/de chantage blackmail (Q34284).
That's a general problem with legal terms, as legal definitions of offenses vary a lot between countries, and so do legal terms. What is covered by one legal term in one country could be split into two distinct offenses in another. So in many cases, it might have been okay to link articles to articles about similar legal concepts in other languages, but from a database POV, it's probably not a really good idea to try to somehow stuff them all into one data set. -- 05:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes the words "extortion" and "blackmail" are used interchangeably in colloquial English. But more precisely, "extortion" (as in extortion (Q6452087)) is generally any demand with coercion (Q325980): it can use any threat; it might have the threat of violence or it might threaten in some other way. I would say that extortion (Q6452087) <subclass of (P279)  coercion (Q325980), at least in English. Some kinds of extortion (in the general sense, not necessarily legal sense):

  • "Blackmail" (as in blackmail (Q34284)) is more specific extortion: The threat is to spread embarrassing information, and the information might be true or not.
  • racket (Q1283181) is almost always extortion (Q6452087), though sometimes the victim does not know it: The victim might know that the criminal is involved with the source of the problem, or the victim might not know, and instead think that the problem is caused by something else.
  • ransom (Q1414572): a person or thing is kept (usually kidnapping (Q318296) or theft (Q2727213)) until demands are satisfied

There are many types of extortion (and similar behavior) listed at en:Extortion#Similar crimes. But of course that is for English. Maybe coercion (Q325980) is the broadest term. (Also, there is duress (Q1192757), which is a legal defense, saying that the perpetrator was a victim of coercion (Q325980).) I have seen instances on Wikidata where English-language concepts are subclasses of German-language concepts that have no English-language label; that may be useful here, but requires someone fluent in more than one language. --Closeapple (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Erpressung" in German is something the perpetrator does to achieve a certain reaction of the victim. The perpetrator threatens to spread an information or to harm the victim or a relative. The perpetrator holds a child of the victim hostage to achieve money from the victim, this is a typical case of Erpressung. Blackmailing has a colloquial equivalent in German "Anschwärzen" = denigrate. There is no specific legal term for it, but if it comes to court it is "Verleumdung", however the perpetrator must tell lies or twist the truth to get convicted. You can not get convicted by telling the truth about a secret affair or something similar. Erpressung can represent the threat of spreading unwanted Information, Verleumdung represents the action of spreading lies an twisted information. The main difference between a case of Erpressung and a case of Verleumdung is the threat and the action.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Blackmail is such an ugly word... (TV tropes) -- Jheald (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

adding comment to get this archived at some point... --LydiaPintscher (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Why has the GUI only gotten 100 times worse each time it has changed? Wikidata has an unfamiliar format for anyone who is familiar with editing Wikipedia pages - there is no edit tab at the top. In the original format, there was a "section" for each item, with an edit tab for each, and a blank section at the bottom to add a new item. That worked well, once you figured out how to use it. The only difficulty was if you tried to add something that was in its own dummy item, which you had to delete first, or merge.

Adding Wikipedia sitelinks.png

The second version took away the one section per item and consolidated the edit link to one link that unintuitively had to also be used if you wanted to add a link. That version made the time required to add links about 100 times as long. To save time though, this link can be used, just substituting the Q number you want to edit for Q42.

It would be extremely helpful to place a link to that page with the link labeled "add" at the bottom of the Wikipedia section of every page, populated of course with that page's Q number, as it is about 100 times faster to use than the present method of adding new links. The only thing you have to remember to do is put in the full wiki name, like enwiki, instead of just en.

Wikipedia sitelinks Q30-2014-01-16.png

I was not able to find a screenshot of that iteration.

Which brings us to the current abomination. Which removed the most important functionality of all, for me, the ability to copy and paste in tab separated columns. The second worst feature of this version is to move the GA/FA to the right of each article name instead of to the left where they have always been. And the third, using side by side columns.

Wikipedia sitelinks Q30-2014-01-16-suggested-layout.png

So the question is, why does each new GUI become worse than the last one, instead of better? Like this one. Wixty (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2015

fort (Q1785071) and fortress (Q57831)[edit]

I think is the same argument or not? --Rippitippi (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the articles I read tells me that for example Boden Fortress (Q1408858) is an instance of fortress (Q57831) made up by a group of fort (Q1785071). So, it does not look the same to me, but I refused my military service, so I'm not an expert. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
basically both are the same. However to make things complicated dewiki has both, Festung and Fort. The old term was Festung that was eventually replaced by Fort (the French equivalent) just to use the term Festung later again.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
When I read more of the related Swedish articles, it does not look like they are easy to compare between different languages. A modern Swedish fästning is a large structure, made up by several forts. The cold war Bodens fästning had 8 forts together with artillery and mobile units in the mountains in northern Sweden. In older time it's more comparable with a fort and can also mean a prison. But a Fort is not a prison, it's always a defense-structure. There is also the word Befästning, which more is related to the walls around a fort or a piece of artillery. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"is a list of" on categories[edit]

Hoi, I have added over 2000 times "is a list of" to category items. I have the impression that someone is deleting them. If this is the consensus, it is easier to do them all at one time. I would however like some discussion first as it does impact the functionality of Reasonator aversely. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

category combines topics (P971) seems the option for categories. Neither works with Reasonator. --- Jura 12:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Reasonator is down.. However, for all the categories that have the "is a list of" you WILL get a list of items that fulfil the statements in the qualifiers. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, a new feature? In the past, the qualifiers had no effect, so the lists were quite useless. --- Jura 12:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to work. It's just that in the past, I tried qualifiers that don't ;). For things like Cultural Asset of National Interest (Q1019352), it seems impossible.
Anyways, it does seem useful. We could just rename the property to "is a list/category of". --- Jura 13:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Categories are lists in their own way... No reason to change this property.. Better not ... Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, the description of the property should at least explain how it's meant to be used. --- Jura 14:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm against is a list of (P360) on categories. It is abuse of a property, only used by Gerard and is added only for a feature of Reasonator. We have category's main topic (P301). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
First how is a category anything but a list and also why is this abuse? It has been widely published that it has this use. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Publishing is something different than a discussion. This is abuse because it's only being added to get a feature in Resonator working. The Reasonator should be adjusted, not these kind of stuff. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
A list is by definition a finite and ordered set. A category may not be finite and not be ordered. Therefore a distinction can be made between those concepts. To me, the question is is this distinction useful to us and how ? Casper Tinan (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I also prefer category's main topic (P301) and category combines topics (P971) over is a list of (P360). Pichpich (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything that can be done with P971? --- Jura 17:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There are currently over 2000 categories done in this way. They help to prioritise what category to do next. They help in the process of setting up AutoList. With over 2,000,000 edits using this process it should be obvious that it helps us a lot.
When there is a process to automate the adding of statements based on categories in Wikipedias, these statements can be used to set that up and once that is done, they can be removed without adverse effect. GerardM (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I see the usefulness of your approach, but I was wondering what Pichpich's approach would look like. --- Jura 07:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Discussion now also continuing at Property_talk:P360#P360_and_categories Jheald (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposing category combines topics (P971) for deletion[edit]

Main: Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#.7B.7BPfD.7CProperty:P971.7D.7D

I'm going to propose category combines topics (P971) for deletion, because is a list of (P360) is a far better model.

The problem with category combines topics (P971) is that by just specifying that a category combines eg "Paintings" + "London", it gives no way to distinguish whether a category is for "Paintings of London" or for "Paintings in London". It also doesn't specify whether the items in the category are going to be instances of paintings, or instances of Londons -- you have to then check back to the item for painting and the item for London and guess which one is more likely.

Contrast that with how is a list of (P360) handles List of women engineers (Q15832361): it specifies precisely the inclusion criteria, in a form that is natively Wikidata, that precisely corresponds to what would or wouldn't be included on appropriately items. It tells us that the members of this list will have the fundamental nature instance of (P31) human (Q5), that engineer (Q81096) is relevant because it specifies these items' occupation (P106), and that female (Q6581072) is relevant because it specifies these items' sex or gender (P21).

Therefore (particularly @Sjoerddebruin, Multichill:, I hope you won't mind if I nominate category combines topics (P971) for deletion, with a view to migration to is a list of (P360). I think it's the right thing to do.

(As for the point that is a list of (P360) is for "lists", I don't see any value being added is we make that restriction. The way to tell whether something is a list or a category is to look at its P31. What P360 does is to present inclusion criteria, and makes sense to do that with a common syntax on a single common property). Jheald (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me now go slightly off-topic, to explain why I particularly care about this at the moment, and the challenge that moving to P360 would help me with.
My key focus project at the moment is to try to develop a pipeline that will take images of maps for which we have particular lat/long and scale data, and try to automatically identify what they are of, and how they should be categorised. To assist this, it would be particularly helpful to strengthen Wikidata's P31 identification of things like battles, castles, cathedrals, churches etc; so that if I have a map with a particular lat/long, I can look at the items that Wikidata returns close to that position, and see that one of them has a P31 of an appropriate scale (ie the scale of a battle), so a strong contender to be what the map is of; and with the P31 I can also identify what CommonsCat the map should go into (ie plans of battles in that region).
However, at the moment our P31 coverage for items can be quite poor. For example, out of about 180,000 items with co-ordinates in the UK and Ireland [1], more than 30,000 (17%) currently don't have a P31. [2].
One way to improve this is to mine the wiki categories. But then I hit the same problem that everyone else hits with wiki categories. After an indeterminate number of levels, suddenly the category no longer defines a narrower and narrower subset of battles; but instead becomes a category devoted to a particular battle, containing particular people that fought in it. Alternatively, one could be working on painters from Italy, but suddenly one reaches a category for a particular painter's works (or a category for a family of whom some, but not all, were painters). To the extent that it's possible (and that is going to vary from category to category) putting in machine-readable descriptions using is a list of (P360) would be incredibly helpful for extractions of this kind -- a simple crawler can then return a tree of categories of items that match the criteria, excluding ones that don't.
Adding P360s is for me the clear front-runner of how to add this desperately needed information to items for categories. It is the way I think we should go forward on this. And that is why I think we should retire category combines topics (P971) without delay, and migrate any information currently in a P971 to a P360 as soon as possible. Jheald (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've posted a few more ideas about where I think categories are going, and what I think Wikidata has to offer categories and category-crawling, at the end of the Phabricator item T87686.
It got a bit long (and may be a bit easier to read if you cut and paste it into your favourite editor); but I'd be interested to know what people think, and especially @GerardM: how much of this is already possible, once you get good coverage with is a list of (P360) properties? Jheald (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

suitable way to import encyclopedic content data2pedia[edit]

Sometimes there is suitable content (Talk:Q12608129) on talk pages. Is there a way to to import these content license compliant to Wikipedia? Thank you, Conny (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

All content on talk pages is licensed under CC-BY-SA - the same license as Wikipedia. So it should be the same as with moving content from most other Wikimedia-Projects. --Denny (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
The license applys to the wording of written texts and pictures, not to the content. Example:
  1. René Jacobs (born 30 October 1946) is a Belgian (Flemish) musician. He came to fame as a countertenor but in recent years has become renowned as a conductor of Baroque and early Classical opera. This text in its wording is from the English Wikipedia. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license
  2. Name: René Jacobs; birthdate: 1946; nationality: Belgian; occupation: singer, conductor; voice type: countertenor; genre: baroque music, opera This is free content based on a Wikipedia article. You can reuse this information in any way you like. This information can not be protected by copyright laws and has CC0 1.0 Universell (CC0 1.0) license. By law there is no obligation to source your information, however you help other users to improve the item and to maintain quality of the data e. g. in case of disputes or in fighting vandalism if you provide sources.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Australian sportspeople[edit]

Something to do foar people who've got (more) time on their hands (than I have): Category:Australian sports participants (Q7039224) and Category:Australian sportspeople (Q17301360). Seems like the same category to me, but you can't simply merge them because there's an Italian item linked to each one. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"sports participants" are people actually doing the sports, "sportspeople" are also managers, trainers, etc. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I don't think that's correct. A "sportsperson" (pl. "sportspeople") is someone actively playing a sport, not a sports official. Anyway, for sports officials there are separate categories. And "sports participants" is what I labeled the nameless category -- couldn't call it "sportspeople" (I tried) because that category already existed. So however you want to interpret the names, the difference is artificial. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Platypus, a speaking interface for Wikidata[edit]

I and some other students from the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon (Q10159) have created a query answering tool based on Wikidata. Its goal is to provide an improved version of Wiri with advanced natural language processing techniques. Thanks to Lydia there is a now a blog post on blog to introduce it (a translation in German is also provided).

A side feature that may especially interest the Wikidata community is the power user's query syntax that allows to do easily queries on Wikidata content. It is currently powered by WikidataQuery but we should switch to our own query engine in a few days. Tpt (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Your Tool even works with OpenStreetmap! "Where is Hamburg?" Cool!! --Molarus 03:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we use OpenStreetMap to display geocoordinates that are in Wikidata. But we are also planning to use OpenStreeMap in order to display geo shapes instead of coordinates for big objects like countries. And even maybe to do nice things like opening hours of your closest supermarket. Tpt (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting project. Any chance of making some of the language bits editable on-wiki? --Yair rand (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting tool and project. Awesome work! --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 18:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Super Bowl humans[edit]

A bot added award received (P166)  Super Bowl (Q32096) to a bunch of humans. This seems weird in my opinion, it's the team that wins it and not the individual humans. What to do? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

(A "bunch" in this case appears to mean several thousand.) These statements are problematic for multiple reasons:
  1. Unless I'm mistaken, the Super Bowl isn't an award in the first place. It's a competition, and the relevant "prize" here would be Vince Lombardi Trophy (Q2526532), if I'm reading the articles correctly.
  2. If the game were to be used, there are more specific items that would fit better than the generic Super Bowl (Q32096), such as Super Bowl XLIX (Q1710023).
  3. As you mentioned, the prize is not awarded to each individual player, but the team as a whole.
I recommend mass-removing these statements by bot, preferably the bot that originally added them. Pinging @T.seppelt:, owner of User:KasparBot: Is your bot capable of this? --Yair rand (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone, my bot is not able to remove these particular claims. I would recommend to use WiDar to remove all award received (P166)  Super Bowl (Q32096)-claims. Anyway Super Bowl (Q32096) is a subclass of award (Q618779). Shall someone remove this claim? --T.seppelt (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
removed. Filceolaire (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Note: Filceolaire only deleted a statement on Super Bowl (Q32096), the claims are still there. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Started deletions. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

creation time[edit]

There is a long discussion in plwiki about switching Template:Infobox language (Q7217946) to use Wikidata. The last topic concerns support for constructed language (Q33215) (i.e. Esperanto (Q143)), and as far as creation time of the language is concerned there are proposed the following properties: creator (P170), point in time (P585), start time (P580), and end time (P582). However the point in time (P585) describes some point in time so it can be used when it was created/published, but creating any work needs a period of time, so I want to ask if using start time (P580) and end time (P582) as qualifiers inside creator (P170) is good (or the best) solution for the problem. Paweł Ziemian (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish, Traditional Chinese, Italian[edit]

Sorry, but it's not in the FAQ and I'm struggling to understand Wikidata. Why are these three languages in particular (and no others) at the top of every Q-page? Pengo (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

These are based on your current location. You can customize them by adding babel templates to your user page. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on a Wiki site for ages. Pengo (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Are there plans to add a way to edit other languages without having to first do some undocumented template nonsense on your user page? Or to allow the user to change their preferences without relying on this kludge? Pengo (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is phab:T62369.--GZWDer (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That is good to see. For several years, the weird staticness of the box has made me assume they were arbitrarily chosen test fields to be shown while the user interface was developed beyond an alpha stage, but they've been like that so long that I had to wonder what was going on. Pengo (talk) 08:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not undocumented by the way, it's the second question on the FAQ you've mentioned. Maybe the question can be adjusted (eg. How can I change the languages in the In a other language section?) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. My FAQ question would be phrased "Where are the other languages in the In a other language section?" Pengo (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
When I removed my babel-template now (to see what it looked like) I notice that the set of languages has changed. I do not see Sapmi any longer, but I see Meänkieli (Q13357) together with Finnish and English. I do not really see the logic in that. How many around here speak Meänkieli? I would guess less than speak Kurmanji or Arabic. We do not have many speakers of Sapmi around here, it's extinct. But we have many locations with Sapmi names. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What is this item?[edit]

Category:Project (Q2945159) makes no sense to me. What is it meant to be? --Pi zero (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

English description: top category for project maintenance and management. There may be propably a conflict with Category:Contents (Q1281). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: Indeed. I found a whole bunch of Category:Wikinews links there, which was certainly wrong in the case of English Wikinews and was probably wrong for all the others — Category:Wikinews is a topic category for news about Wikinews, and therefore is properly linked to Wikinews (Q964). Since I've moved those links, there is now room at Category:Project (Q2945159) if one wants to move Wikinews links to there from Category:Contents (Q1281).
Those two items do seem suggestive of a fundamental structural problem with using Wikidata to drive interwikis: The purupose of an interwiki is to provide a useful navigational link, not to make a philosophical statement about ontology, and consequently whenever a page on a sister project serves more than one purpose — which happens often — the simplistic use of Wikidata's links to generate interwikis does damage to the sister project by depriving readers of useful nagivational links. The latest example of this I'd encountered (prior to the above) was that of Wikinews Category:Siberia, which has to choose between two difference senses of "Siberia" and cannot have Wikidata-generated links to a mixture of the two even though it's likely that many Wikinews projects have a category for one or the other but not both. (I wouldn't be surprised if Russian Wikinews were the only one that has separate categories for both.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is what I call the "Bonnie and Clyde problem". Some WPs have separate articles on 'Bonnie Parker' and 'Clyde Barrow'. Other WPs have one article on 'Bonnie and Clyde'. There have been various proposals for fixing this mismatch between the requirements of Wikidata and the requirements for interwikilinks but nothing has happened yet. Filceolaire (talk) 10:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikibooks now gets language links via Wikidata[edit]

Hey folks :)

Last night we added Wikibooks to Wikidata. Wikibooks' language links can now be maintained on Wikidata. Please give them a warm welcome and keep an eye on Wikidata:Wikibooks for questions if you can.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Is MusicBrainz a “serious and publicly available reference”?[edit]

The deletion of Q18901027 claims that MusicBrainz isn't enough to establish notability. Pretty much all things on MusicBrainz are "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entities", and I have previously been told that MusicBrainz is considered a "serious and publicly available reference" (it is used for authority control for music related matters in the Wikipedias too). These two things make it sound like entities on MusicBrainz fulfil notability criteria #2, but perhaps some "serious and publicly available references" are more "serious and publically available" than others? Or was the deletion a mistake and should be rolled back? (FWIW, Freebase was ingesting all of MusicBrainz, without discrimination, and the Wikidata project seem to find MusicBrainz serious enough to use for the WikidataQuality external validation prototype.) —Freso (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't mind referencing to MusicBrainz being sufficient for notability. I always have thought that we should be more inclusive here since we are dealing with data, in case any of the projects here (or off of Wikimedia) want to use it. Ajraddatz (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 for being inclusive! ·addshore· talk to me! 12:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • +1 from me too. --CatQuest, The Endavouring Cat (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That item had enough data to be useful, also +1 for being inclusive. - Hoo man (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Obvious +1 for being inclusive! Tpt (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please note that the MusicBrainz-entry of invalid ID (Q18901027) was created by himself. As you can see in the deletion request, I also wasn't sure if a entry on MusicBrainz is enough. But after I found out that it has been created by the described object himself, I don't think it's enough for this specific entry. Please note that MusicBrainz is also some kind of wiki, editable by everyone. Same for IMDb btw. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Two questions:
      1. Does it matter who created an entry as long as it is correct and factual?
        • The MusicBrainz community (unlike the Wikipedias, I know) love when record labels and even artists themselves spend time and resources to get data into the MusicBrainz database: it just makes the data better for everyone and allows more "generic" editors access to the foremost experts on what is being entered. Keep in mind that one of the ways MusicBrainz differ from the Wikipedias is that it only stores facts. And these facts don't change regardless of whether the involved artist is the one entering them or it being someone who has never heard of them before - the involved artist will likely have access to more detailed facts though, and thus be able to enter those, adding to the overall depth (both quality and quantity wise) of the database. —Freso (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      2. Does MusicBrainz being wiki like make it non-"serious and publically available"?
    • Additionally, I have been in close supervision of that artist as he has gradually entered more information about himself (which is also how I discovered that the WD datapoint had been deleted) and can verify that he belongs in the MB database (or I would have blocked his edits a while ago), and I am grateful that he is adding himself, so that I (or another editor) don't have to spend the time to do so (which would likely have been less thorough as well). —Freso (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Even as a fan of inclusiveness on Wikidata, I am hesitant to agree that an artist's mere presence on MusicBrainz equals notability. Anyone can add their musical works to MusicBrainz, and for that site, that's GREAT!! But unless Wikidata really wants to duplicate every single fact on MusicBrainz (which to me is not a goal to worked toward) I do think other sources of notability would be necessary. I do not think MusicBrainz meets the requirements of number two on its own. The guideline says, "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. If there is no item about you yet, you are probably not notable." Perhaps the guideline itself is unclear then. To me, MusicBrainz is a good reference, yes, but a local newspaper obituary is also a good reference. For a notable person, that obituary is usable — that does not mean that every person who has a local newspaper obituary is notable. Or even a census document — it might establish an important fact for a notable person, but surely Wikidata is not the place for every human who has ever been listed in a census. Sweet kate (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(This is not to say a particular subject themselves isn't notable. This is just a call to go find other references too. Probably many of the persons referenced in MusicBrainz also have a presence in other serious and publicly available references. For instance, here is a story about this person in a newspaper. Or they meet the Wikidata guidelines via number 3: "It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful." If they are in a notable band, they would be in statements for that item. Etc.) Sweet kate (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

branch office[edit]

How might one add branch offices under a corporation?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

Mostly one wouldn't. To get the details of a branch office one would have to follow the link to the corporation website and look for branch office details there. Filceolaire (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge problems[edit]

en:Category:Watches and de:Kategorie:Uhr (Gerät) 18:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

en:Category:Watch models and de:Kategorie:Uhrenmodell 18:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

en:Category:Individual clocks and de:Kategorie:Einzeluhr 18:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


... are now very big mess. You can find many examples at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P106.

In Property talk:P425#"Field of" qualifications or degrees? Gymel used very nice and simple scheme:

(My addition:)

However, the current state does not well recognize whether an item is an activity or an occupation.

My suggestions thus are:

  1. all targets of occupation (P106) should be profession (Q28640) (subclasses) and not activity (Q1914636) nor position (Q4164871)
  2. all targets of occupation (P106) should have field of this profession (P425) (not occupation (P106))
  3. all targets of field of this profession (P425) should be activity (Q1914636) and not profession (Q28640)

More discussions:

Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, @Matěj Suchánek: An academic publication about this for example. I recommand to watch fig1. Their "activity" class says that all activity instances have a start and an end date. Every time somebody makes a hat, it also has a start and an endate, so hatmaking is a subclass of activity (every instance of hatmaking is also an instance of activity). I'd wrote

< hatmaking > subclass of (P279) miga < activity >

. TomT0m (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: #1, items with occupation (P106) miga:activity (Q1914636), 39,638 out of 40,723 are because singer (Q177220) has been an activity since this claim by User:Giftzwerg 88, who therefore might like to weigh in on this discussion. --Haplology (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I like this proposal and I have removed the ": " and the "Singer:instance of:activity" claims. 'Activity' is a process, not an occupation. 'Singing' is an activity. 'Singer' is an occupation. Filceolaire (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice: request for 'property creator' permission[edit]

I have made a request for 'property creator' permission for my account. Please comment at that location. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the status on Freebase data migration to wikidata[edit]

I would like to know the status of the freebase data migration to wiki data, and the wiki data gonna have freebase MID reference??  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

Hi, the migration has it's own Wikiproject here. --Denny (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Automate "is a list of" harvesting[edit]

When a category item includes the "is a list of" statement, it follows that all the articles in that article that conform to whatever they are a list of, can be given the statements that are the qualifier. When this is automated, a bot can regularly revisit all the categories associated with the item and harvest the data. This has many benefits:

  • Wikidata will have more comprehensive data for the subject
  • there is no need to do this revisit manually
  • "category data" will include many more redlinks when seen from the Wikidata perspective

Obviously, when categories include the data in Wikidata, it can become possible to have all kinds of configurations that define what a project shows. A category may be shown or not. Red links may be shown or not.

In my opinion there are two ways of doing this.. Use the qualifiers in the categories themselves or have a list where other paramaters are included as well for instance the depth a query may look in a given Wiki project.

What do you think ??? Thanks, 14:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi @GerardM: I don't think it should be done fully automatically; rather, I think a semi-automatic process that generates a list for Magnus's QuickStatements would probably be best, that can be manually reviewed before execution.
But it would be good to have a regularly-updating automatic process that identified how many items there were in the category, that don't match the inclusion criteria in the is a list of (P360) -- like a constraint violation count. It would also be a good thing for this count to be accessible by WDQ like a regular property, so one could easily create a report for a paricular query of categories, that could be used to identify areas that need attention.

There are various reasons why I would resist a fully automated property-adding bot, principally because there are a variety of reasons that might be behind an article being in a category, without matching its inclusion criteria.
  • it might be a missing property on the item, eg a missing P31 (still a big problem for us), or a missing one of the other properties specified in the P360 -- this is the case that could be fixed by automatic or semi-automatic addition.
  • it might indicate an additional set of acceptable criteria: ie an additional P360 that should be added to the category item. For example, the en-wiki version of category Category:Spanish Armada (Q8785755) includes ships that were part of the Armada; people who were commanders of it; events in which it was associated; and more -- each of which might need to be specified in a separate P360. So it's entirely possible that an additional set of acceptable criteria could have been missed.
  • some articles are typically included in categories as auxiliary articles, even though they don't match the usual inclusion criteria of the category, that would be expressed in the P360. The most obvious of these is a survey article on the topic of the category as a whole -- eg perhaps "Dutch painters", which is not itself a painter from the Netherlands. This will normally be indicated by category's main topic (P301). However, there may be additional auxiliary articles also conveniently included in the category -- eg "List of Dutch painters" perhaps. I suggest that these should be identified by a new property -- "Category auxiliary item", one might call it -- indeed, perhaps "Category-related list" is such a common occurrence that it should have a property of its own. But there are other reasons that an article might be an "auxiliary article", so one needs to investigate whether the constraint violation is one of these.
  • there's always the possibility that the sitelink may be wrong due to a language muddle, and that this category item is not the correct category item for the wiki-category on the particular language wiki being investigated. A correct category item might have subtly different inclusion criteria.
  • finally, there's always the possibility of human error -- that the article in question should perhaps never have been in that category in the first place.
For all of these reasons, I would be against a fully automatic approach.
But a supervised automated tool could IMO be very valuable. As also could be gamification through one of Magnus's toys ("does this article meet these criteria?") Jheald (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed new properties List related to category, Category related to list, and Category auxiliary item to help define items that should be excluded from category-membership constraint violations. Jheald (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Also Parent category. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
An item would only be included with a statement when the qualifiers apply. So it needs to be a person only then can it be "educated at" "Harvard".. A manual phase helps how ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: Because if you look at categories like "People educated at Harvard" you find they also contain things like "List of people educated at Harvard", which would get on the list of constraint violations -- and sometimes other sorts of auxiliary items, not so easily spotted as a simple person/non-person distinction (particularly if you're working in a non-person category).
I suggest we take it gently, step by step, until more people have experience of doing this in a machine-assisted semi-automated way first, so that we get a community of editors that understand and have experienced what sort of issues do or do not arise, and how often, before we take the definitive step to go full automatic. Other people need the chance to catch up in their experience and understanding to where you've got to. Jheald (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
When the first statement says .. "is a list of" "human" it cannot be a list or anything else so what is the problem? Thanks, GerardM (talk)
@GerardM: I thought we were talking about categories. If you look at a real category, at least on en-wiki, such as en:Category:Harvard University alumni, you will see that the second item is en:List of Harvard University non-graduate alumni, which is not a person; and the first is en:Harvard alumni health study which is not a person either. So one cannot just take the contents of the category, and tag every item with "alumnus of Harvard". Almost all, yes; but not quite all. Jheald (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM: So you're assuming you can filter based on the P31 matching, and that will root out all false positives of items needing fixing. It may also remove a number of true items that need fixing, because our P31 coverage isn't always all that strong. But it's the rate of false positives that are the real concern, if we're using a machine to add content.
Does what you're suggesting make sense? It may do. Probably if a human was scanning a long list of items to be tagged, they too might not spot many false positives other than those with a blatantly wrong P31. But will that get everything? I simply don't know. I just haven't looked at enough 'non-usual' category entries to feel that I definitively know, one way or the other. What might be useful would be to scan a lot of categories, try to identify all the 'non usual' entries other than list articles and survey articles on the topic, and see whether we can convince ourselves that we then understand the full range of sorts of articles that can additionally appear in a category, other than regular ones that are included by virtue of a P360 inclusion criterion that can be stated for the category. Jheald (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not care all that much if it gets "all" of them. I care that they are right. So when I harvest from the Indiana State Senators category, I will only include those articles that have an item and have a statement indicating that they are human. When this process is repeated at a later date, new items and items that have recently been identified as human will be included. Great. I do not care for the articles that are in the category and do not really fit. I harvest and for many categories Wikidata will be more complete than any Wikipedia category.. Stop thinking Wikipedia.. The proposal is to benefit Wikidata first. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I care about the articles which do not really fit, because I want to make sure that they do not get into your list. You're right: filtering on P31 should catch most of them. But I want to know we can catch all of them -- and to be confident about that is the reason that I want to get a better sense of what a big enough sample of them look like. Jheald (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The other thing is that I do care about what articles get missed out, because for what I want to do -- namely to understand what sort of objects are the items being returned close to a particular latitude/longitude -- to be able to do that I want as comprehensive P31 coverage of items like cities, castles, churches, cathedrals, battlefields, villages and towns as possible. And I need it as soon as I can get it. Jheald (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec) There are still also the other potential issues that I listed above -- eg a bad sitelink, linking a category to a non-equivalent item, that has a slightly mismatched P360; or a category with additional routes for inclusion, in addition to those specified by its current P360s -- both of these could lead to attempts to add statements that are incorrect that might potentially be spotted by a human phase. Jheald (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Another example: Stamford (Q1000662) included in en-wiki's Category:Castles in Lincolnshire (Q8346352) not because it is a castle, but because it has a castle (which is discussed in the article). I know that you're more interested in people articles with a confirmed instance of (P31) => human (Q5), which may be a lot safer; but even then, are there really never examples that a human being might spot as not quite fitting the criteria, despite being included in the category?
What (IMO) ought to be done with Stamford Castle is a redirect created on en-wiki, and linked to Stamford Castle (remains of) (Q17644180), with the redirect (rather than the target) being put in the category Category:Castles in Lincolnshire (Q8346352). (Though I know you and Jane disagree with that). But even so, there's an issue, because Stamford Castle (remains of) (Q17644180) => instance of (P31) => scheduled monument (Q219538), which is not a subclass of castle (Q23413). So perhaps really a new item should be created for Stamford Castle, that Stamford Castle (remains of) (Q17644180) would be part of (P361). Jheald (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Per advice from WikiProject Cultural Heritage, I have marked Stamford Castle (remains of) (Q17644180) now additionally with instance of (P31) => castle (Q23413) and instance of (P31) => ruins (Q109607). Jheald (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In the same tree there's also Adulterine castle (Q16970488), which should => subclass of (P279) => castle (Q23413), rather than instance of (P31) => castle (Q23413). (Just collecting more examples of the kind of things that may need to be watched out for when crawling down a category tree. Is there an existing FAQ on this anywhere?) In this case this would be the kind of P360 exception that I would propose to use the suggested new property Category auxiliary item to mark up, so Category:Castles in England (Q7131216) => Category auxiliary item => Adulterine castle (Q16970488)) Jheald (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Jheald: What you are pointing at has little to do with what I propose. The proposal is to harvest what fits obviously in Wikidata. When it means that 30% of a category is not included, Is leave it for another day. When statements can be added to castles, the first line of business is to find that they are a castle and only then add new statements. When we do it in this way, we add a lot of information from ALL the Wikipedias. It is NOT a Wikipedia centric approach. It does not care at all about what problems a Wikipedia has by being inconsistent. The idea is not to replace the content of categories, it is to harvest categories and do a better job at that. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi @GerardM: To be clear, my first interest here, just like you, is to be accurately harvesting in information from categories into Wikidata. The longer-term possibility to give category views on Wikipedias some nice new features is a free bonus, not my immediate priority.
For something like Category:Castles in England (Q7131216) and its first-level children (which actually are reasonably straightforward), the important property often missing from items is the instance of (P31) => castle (Q23413), which is therefore what I am so keen to harvest from the category, and the context in which I am so keen to explore the challenges that can arise to such harvesting. (More ambitious will be to do similarly for something like Category:Battles (Q7145329))
I appreciate now that you are asking about a slightly more specific case, where the P31 is already in place, and what you would be adding are additional properties based on the qualifiers of the P360 -- for such a purpose you can use the P31 to filter out the articles which are most obviously inappropriate, which makes what you are proposing likely to be much safer.
But I would still like to know: what sorts of false positives have you still encountered? Can you give examples? Jheald (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hoi, harvesting the "instance of" for an article is not something that can be safely automated. What can be automated is what makes the "whatever" more specific. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata submissions for Wikimania[edit]

Hey :)

Here are all the Wikidata related submissions for Wikimania: It'd be awesome if you could go and vote for your favorite ones.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

WDQ not updating[edit]

Hi all, is there a problem with WDQ using an older database than the live Wikidata? I am updating values for CLARA-ID (P1615) and though I updated Louise Élisabeth Vigée Le Brun (Q213163) on 25 February it still won't be listed in a "claim[1615]" query in autolist. Am I missing something? Thx, Jane023 (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that Carla Lavatelli (Q17404034) is listed now, and her entry for CLARA-ID (P1615) was updated on 15 February - weekly updates maybe? Jane023 (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's lagging these days. has the date of 2015-02-09T02:06:06Z --- Jura 08:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I am getting a bit farther, but that still doesn't make sense in this case because Barbro Bäckström (Q4941467) had the CLARA-ID (P1615) value added 10 February and though this is not reflected in the dump, the one I listed above for Carla Lavatelli (Q17404034) updated on 15 February is. I must be missing some sync option for the mix-n-match data. Pinging @Magnus Manske: Jane023 (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Qualifier for escutcheons in coat of arms image[edit]

Hi. en:Template:Coat of arms, like other language versions of this template, is based on the following principles:

"Based on conventional heraldic practice, the following premise ensures a certain degree of uniformity and distinctiveness of the motifs even at low resolutions (20 pixels is the default width):
  • I: Escutcheons exclusively
All elements of achievement save the indispensable escutcheon are omitted.
E.g. for Belgium, Royal Arms of Belgium.svg is shown instead of more elaborate variants such as Great coat of arms of Belgium.svg, State Coat of Arms of Belgium.svg or Arms of Belgium (with crown).svg.
Similarly, for Austria: EU Member States' CoA Series- Austria.svg is shown instead of Coat of arms of Austria.svg.
  • II: Marshalling avoided
When an escutcheon has multiple variants, the one with least marshalling, i.e. the simplest, is employed.
E.g. for Sweden, Armoiries Suède moderne.svg is shown instead of the following quartered variant: Blason Oscar II de Suède.svg.
Similarly, for Liechtenstein: Lesser arms of Liechtenstein.svg is shown instead of Greater arms of Liechtenstein.svg."

With regard to principle I, I propose a qualifier named "escutcheon" for coat of arms image specifying that a given file actually is an escutcheon, like Royal Arms of Belgium.svg, and not a greater coat of arms (which often would be meaningless for such templates) like Great coat of arms of Belgium.svg. This change would certainly make Wikidata more useful for the use of heraldry in editions of Wikipedia. Could this be done? Thanks in advance. - Ssolbergj (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like the guidance above needs to be added to the talk page for coat of arms image (P94) so that this property P94 is only used to link to the version of the escutcheon without marshalling and without elements of achievement. If the wikidata item for a location links to more than one image then one of the images should be marked as 'preferred'. Usually this will happen if the coat of arms changes over time and each one will have qualifiers for 'start date' and 'end date', with the current version marked preferred.
You could use depicts (P180):escutcheon (Q331357) as a qualifier to coat of arms image (P94) for the link to the plain version. Use shown with features (P1354) as qualifier to coat of arms image (P94) to note that an image has marshalling or elements of achievement or better yet don't use use P94 to link to these, unless I have misunderstood something - save this for the CommonsData item for these images when that happens. Filceolaire (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

All texts in italics in Swedish[edit]

I wonder why all the links in the left panel and the top panel are in italics, if I use Wikidata in Swedish language and go to some translation page in edit mode. For example Swedish here (the same page in English). Seems occurring only if you use Swedish language. --Stryn (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it look different on meta? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You find italics also in "Summary", "Watch this page" etc, under the editbox. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks the same in the html of the page. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(I fixed the title.) Seems they are in italics also on Meta. I tried to look at the source code, and I found that on the line 64 </div></fieldset> this closing div is in red color (not sure what it means though) in FF. I looked the source code in Finnish, and there the closing div was not red. --Stryn (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

200000000th edit[edit]

See Special:Diff/200000000. @ValterVB:--GZWDer (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow... Wagino 20100516 (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg --ValterVB (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
\o/ --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
woot! Husky (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikibooks-related Badges[edit]

Would it be possible to add Featured Book, Featured Ingredient and Featured Recipe as qualifiers on Wikidata, now that b: items can be added to Wikidata? It Is Me Here t / c 12:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean "badges" instead of "qualifiers"? To add them as badges, we would need an item created for each badge, like Q6540291 and then it is a configuration change. Aude (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #147[edit]

Films with multiple genres[edit]

I've been doing some batch editing to add film genres using Wikipedia categories, and have a questions relating to multiple film genre items. There are many categories in Wikipedia for crosses between genres, e.g. animated adventure films. My assumption is that it is much more useful in Wikidata to assign two separate genres to indicate this, rather than have hundreds of different 'combo genres'. Then someone can easily query for films that are both "animated films" and "adventure films" for example. There are quite a few items that I've found that are not being handled this way (e.g. Ninja Scroll (Q1052531)), so I would appreciate any feedback about this before I proceed with any more large scale editing. Note: I'm aware that there are some 'combo genres' that are accepted genres in their own right, like romantic comedy (Q860626), that will need to be treated differently. NavinoEvans (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

agree. Add genres, not Wikipedia genres. --- Jura 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jura. Any other votes for or against this? It would be good to get some consensus as this choice would imply that we should actually change, for example, every item with genre = horror comedy (Q224700) to have two separate statements instead - genre = horror film (Q200092) & comedy film (Q157443). It certainly makes sense to do so in my eyes - a horror-comedy should surely be returned if you run a query for horror movies (or comedies). NavinoEvans (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Theoretically, you could add all three genres, in your example romantic comedy, plus comedy and romance, so the item will show no matter which filtering you use. Edoderoo (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a reasonable option for well known combo genres like romantic comedy. The community would still have to decide which combo genres are notable enough to use though, as we certainly wouldn't want to have as many as are defined in the Wikipedia category system - I will start a discussion in Wikidata:WikiProject Movies to see if they could get help figure out which ones to include. NavinoEvans (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're running a search for "horror movie", you should specify your search to include instances of any subclass of horror movie. Since horror-comedy is a subclass of horror movie, a movie with a genre of horror-comedy should be returned by such a search (unless specifically excluded), alongside other non-comedy movies. Since we have an item for horror-comedy, I would have thought it inevitable that some editors will use it as a specific genre, therefore your search should be specified to be able to cope with that. Jheald (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The other advantage of marking its genre as horror comedy (Q224700) is that then it will be automatically included in the corresponding Reasonator page [3] -- something not the case if its genres are marked separately as horror and comedy. Having marked it as a horror comedy, it should not also be marked separately as a horror and a comedy -- it is simply clutter to include additional classes alongside a subclass, when that subclass already implies those classes. Jheald (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for that Jheald, very good points. That sounds like a good way to proceed for now. NavinoEvans (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jheald, NavinoEvans: Not the best process to take a decision: using one visualization tool to define how you model data is a wrong idea. Reasonator can be outdated and your data structure becomes senseless. You can use constraints to detect movies which are not correctly tagged instead of creating complex query in order to be sure that all items will be correctly analysed in a query. Just imagine that you want to look for movies defined as horror, comedy and SF, how do you do to structure that kind of query ? Just imagine the number of combinations you have: horror, comedy, SF, horror-comedy, horror-SF, SF-comedy, SF-comedy-horror. And all this combinations have to be correctly connected. Snipre (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: If I want that combination, I would look for films that had a genre that was in the subclass tree of horror, and a genre that was in the subclass tree of comedy, and a genre that was in the subclass tree of SF. Or if one wanted (Comedy and (Horror or SF)), the query would be obvious. Let people give things the genre they think is most appropriate -- whether it's a hyphenated genre (preferable, if that is a recognised sub-genre, that the film is genuinely part of), or different separate root genres if it's a more random sort of collision. Wikidata queries have the flexibility to be able to cope. Jheald (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge problems[edit]

Can somone merge Category:Israeli football chairmen and investors (Q8557014)

with Kategorie:Fußballfunktionär (Israel) (Q16861973) 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge Kategorie:Fußballfunktionär (Ukraine) (Q8960528)

with Category:Ukrainian football chairmen and investors (Q15145176) 15:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone merge Kategorie:Fußballfunktionär (Vereinigte Staaten) (Q8960530)

with Category:American soccer chairmen and investors (Q8248022) 15:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

List of songs[edit]

Is there any way how to link John Cale (Q45909) and List of John Cale songs (Q17280100)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I added "Performer:John Cale" as a qualifier to "Is a list of:song" on List of John Cale songs (Q17280100). Filceolaire (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks anyway, I more curious about the second way (from John Cale (Q45909)), though. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

[Global proposal] (all) Edit pages[edit]

MediaWiki mobile

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Thanks and sorry for writing in English, Nemo 22:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


are posthumous name (P1720) and temple name (P1719) duplicate? --Rippitippi (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, why? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
for the difference see en:Posthumous name and en:Temple name --Pasleim (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata Skim - a (very) limited replacement for Wikidata Query / Autolist[edit]

Hi everyone, for those times when Wikidata Query (and Autolist as well) is down or very slow (like right now), i wrote a (very) limited replacement called Wikidata Skim, it's over here:

It just does one claim, with both property and item fields filled in, and it returns a maximum of 50 results. It's based on the 'linkshere' functionality of the API.

It's not much, but it's better than nothing, i suppose :)

Husky (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ballet dancer[edit]

Just encountered ballet dancer (Q4070300) and ballet dancer (Q805221). I thought we didn't had gender specific professions on Wikidata... Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

They both have separate links in ruwiki, so they can't be merged. --Jakob (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
We probably need to ask a Russian speaker to explain the distinction made on Pichpich (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata API: Does Wikidata item exist?[edit]

What is the easiest way using the Wikidata API to find out given a Wikidata ID whether an item corresponding to that ID exists or not and if it exists whether it is an redirection or a proper item? --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably /w/api.php?action=wbgetentities&format=json&ids=Q9817212&redirects=yes&props=info You can try with a normal item, a redirect or an item that don't exist --ValterVB (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
*Agrees* ·addshore· talk to me! 22:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)