Shortcut: WD:PC

Wikidata:Project chat

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikidata project chat
Place used to discuss any and all aspects of Wikidata: the project itself, policy and proposals, individual data items, technical issues, etc.
Please take a look at the frequently asked questions to see if your question has already been answered.
Also see status updates to keep up-to-date on important things around Wikidata.
Requests for deletions can be made here.
Merging instructions can be found here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2016/05.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.





for permissions


for deletions


for deletion

for comment

and imports



Research about user participation in Wikidata - call for participation (update)[edit]

Dear Wikidata users,
We are a group of researchers of the Web and Internet Science group of the University of Southampton.
We are currently conducting a research aiming to discover how newcomers become full participants into the Wikidata community. We are interested in understanding how the usage of tools, the relationships with the community, and the knowledge and application of policy norms change from users' first approach to Wikidata to their full integration as fully active participants.
This study will take place as an interview, either by videotelephony, e.g. Skype, phone, or e-mail, according to the preference of the interviewees. The time required to answer all the questions will likely be about an hour. Further information can be found on the Research Project Page: Research:Becoming Wikidatians: evolution of participation in a collaborative structured knowledge base..
Any data collected will be treated in the strictest confidentiality, no personal information will be processed for the purpose of the research. The study, which has submission number 20117, has received ethical approval following the University of Southampton guidelines.
We aim at gathering about 20 participants. Users interested in taking part or wishing to receive further information can contact us by writing to the e-mail address

Thank you very much, your help will be much appreciated!

--Alessandro Piscopo

phone number (URL) (P1244) and phone number (P1329)[edit]

  • phone number (URL) (P1244) was created to specify phone numbers in the url format. This would be Wikimedia Foundation (Q180) => tel:+1-415-839-6885 . The format needs to be enabled for Wikidata. On creation of the property, users were advised that this would eventually happen and this is now possible.
  • phone number (P1329) should include the same as a string, but has no built in format validation, so people need to clean up entries after users first entered them. Number of uses are currently fairly limited, but if we try to include data from Wikivoyage, this may increase eventually.

If we agree to activate phone number (URL) (P1244) going forward, we can delete phone number (P1329). Even if I personally don't think this is key data for Wikidata, I think we need to provide a consistent way to include it.
--- Jura 06:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I honestly don't care about activation, but we should have exactly 1 properties for this. Suggestion: Keep "phone number", delete "phone number(URL)", and add a formatter URL to "phone number", since the root data is the phone number and not the URI. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't care either way, but we certainly should have only one property. --Srittau (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC) (Okay, a slight preference for the non-URL version if it is kept in a normalized format. --Srittau (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC))
    • +1 to that idea. I also prefer adding a formatter URL for the same reason, which I'm pretty sure I said somewhere else before. - Nikki (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The property P1329 we created on a temporary basis has normalization issues, so P1244 would be a simple way to have normalized data. The property for email addresses works in a similar way.
    --- Jura 07:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Izno, Srittau: Any suggestions how to clean-up Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P1329#.22Format.22_violations ?
    --- Jura 07:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Working on classification? Important paper for you.[edit]

Hey :)

If you are working on classification here on Wikidata I can highly recommend the paper "State of the Union: A Data Consumer's Perspective on Wikidata and Its Properties for the Classification and Resolution of Entities" that was recently published at ICWSM. You can find a pdf version here. It gives a very good overview of the difficulties faced by someone who wants to make use of our classes and their relations. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read the paper in details but the main problem is that wikidata is the result of different classification systems from different wikipedias. Here we have to merge the works of different communities or work teams in WD into one unique classification scheme. Not easy to handle. Snipre (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I did not read the paper in detail either, but my impression was that the authors have problems converting to a format they can use (like RDF) and that they dislike the fact that the contents of Wikidata are not frozen. The latter is fairly weird, as any database worth anything will keep growing. - Brya (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been reading it - still will be thinking about it some more, but it has some fairly good points. The paper proposes a few specific properties, which we ought to discuss in detail under property proposals. But the main part of their problem concerns our instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) class hierarchy. For some areas (human beings) the class hierarchy usage in wikidata is simple; for others (organizations) it is extremely complex. In both cases they point out things that don't make a lot of sense. For some things (events in particular) they propose splitting off separate wikidata items to attach location etc. data to. I think it would be good to start a discussion on these ideas in Wikidata:WikiProject Ontology. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): I did not have time and courage to read it entirely either but a major point is still in your hand :) Wikidata is still not full featured, and this is still a blocker, even if HUGE steps are done at this point : queries are one major way, of course to extract information and document preferred way, as they are both a sign that a model has been chosen by community, a specification of how information is intended be entered (a not well entered data won't fit show up in the query), and a way to monitor datas. And they are still weakly integrated at this point. I'd also like to higlight that Wikibase has almost integrated tool to model, which leaves community with wikipage for documentation. This is not an easy thing to discuss modelling issues and we are actually a very small number to do this (and still we achieve to have conflicts :/ ) I think we should not expect miracles if nothing changes on the tool part for communautary part. Another critic : I think projects like WikiProject Reasoning could easily be expected to solve the dichotomy "specific classes versus specific properties" which is a fallacy if we can define classes in term of properties and can do inferences with the definition. Still a question of wikidata tools ... but community definitely need the help of tools considering the millions of items the project handles and the complexity of the task. And tools can definitely smooth certain conflicts (I'm thinking item splitting because some people are very territorial about their model and try to isolate themselves to try to control their items) I think for example that human (Q5) versus Homo sapiens (Q15978631) whom a statement was moved recently from one to another is a weirdness related to modelling that is both social and technical but that illustrate pretty much how things can be difficult on a project like this one ... author  TomT0m / talk page 09:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that is certainly a big part of the issue and one of the reasons Markus and his team created SQID for example. And I think this is pretty good and helpful already. Do you have ideas/suggestions how we could integrate it better? Or any other things we can do that would make it easier? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): For better integration of markus tool, integration to templates {{Item documentation}} or {{P'}}, {{Q'}} is definitely useful (this is half done) but they are not that popular in community. Gadgets could help, but they have to be opted-in so i suspect this is kind of power users matter. I could for example replace the reasonator template in my templates.
On thing I already talked about but that would be actually VERY useful is that classes, items,queries and properties become more integrated. For example if we associate an item to a query - say, a class, that if an item is in the result set of any of this query (interpreted in an analog way of class expression in SPARQL), the query appears somewhere on the item page without the need to explicitely state that the item is an instance of the class. Maybe in the form of an "inferred statement" ? I know for example that elastic search has a feature that could help to implement this that allows to recompute stuff on edits that touches an item ( ) and be notified. This could allow to maintain a set of those "inferred statement". author  TomT0m / talk page 11:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I think those are good points. I have no idea how we do this well in the UI yet but let's see. As for gadgets: gadgets can also be enabled by default for everyone. (Though we should definitely not make use of this too much.) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): After a still incomplete but more careful reading of the paper, I think the authors could better serve in an "on wiki" discussion than in a paper and participate here instead of taking a (very consumeric) approach for data extractions :) they have good points but some of their ideas were already discussed here. I'd have a few answers for them, but mostly what we lack here is workforce to organize and document the organisation of stuffs. I suspect we could very more easily clean the class tree of organisations with just a few edits than implement their idea, and I think some of their ideas would vanish in a few discussions here. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree. I am currently scheduling a call with them to see if and how we can make the things they found actionable and useful for all of you here. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Before cleaning we should discuss and approve at community scale some classification schemes. We face 2 different problems:
I agree with you about the fact that the origin of these different systems is mainly driven by closed team working on their items. We should focus on differences in classes inside a same field first. Trying to create one global classification system for all fields is a lost of time: the system will be too abstract. Snipre (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Snipre: I don't think so. Just using instance of (P31) absolutely does not mean that we use only one classification system. Second, it's way more flexible to create an item for a classification and mark every classes in this classification as "class in this cassification", per Help:Classification. On the over hand do you imagine asking for a property for every subfield in the universe ? It's WAY more hard and a lost of time to ask for a property for this. In the end it would be way more inefficient. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Take chemistry for example. Existing ontologies actually use generic properties for classification. The problem in wikidata for chemistry is more inconsistent definition for the "chemical element" concept whose nobody actually seem motivated to sort out. I don't see a property to classify metal/non metals, another one to classify radioactive isotopes and so on. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

How to display sitelinks to a visitor[edit]

Is there any neat link I can use to get a human-readable webpage which lists the (wikipedia) sitelinks available for a given wikidata item? The API pages (e.g. are baffling to a new user, and don't give obvious clickable links. I guess I could use the page for the data item itself, with a section link (e.g., but this is still a little user-unfriendly. Is there anything else? HYanWong (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

actually, slightly annoyingly, something like doesn't work on my browser, because other pieces of the page get loaded later, and push it about, so the page ends up being in a separate place after all components have loaded. Does anyone else find this? HYanWong (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
can confirm that this happens to me too, I start at the sitelink section, but then jump somewhere to the ID section. Using Chrome on Mac. --Denny (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
What exactly are you planning to do? You can build a human-readable page from api in like 20 lines of code. Example:, code. --Lockal (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Lockal: Thanks for the code. I'm have a large set of wikidata IDs (corresponding to organisms, as it happens), and would like to forward users on to the corresponding site link of that creature, where it exists for their language. But where an equivalent language sitelink doesn't exist, I'd like to direct them to the wikidata page, so they can look at the data present on WD, and check out the sitelinks for themselves, in case they speak another language. The simplest way to do that would be to direct them to the appropriate section of the standard WD page. But your code is an alternative, although then they won't see that there is a load of other data there too. HYanWong (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"Approximate radius" for geographical features[edit]

It would be really useful to be able to give geographical features an indicative radius. This would not be a precise value, but instead a rough-order-of-magnitude diameter of a very crude bounding circle (or even, say, 90% coverage circle) around their indicated centre point. For example, a reasonable figure for the "radius" of London (Q84) might be 30km, but it wouldn't really matter if a figure of 20km or 50km was equally representative -- the point is that it's not 3m, 30m, 300m, 3km, or 300km, or 3000km. (City of London (Q23311), by comparison, would have an approximate radius of about 2.5 km: I've added this experimentally to the item by hand, just to give an example.) This would be very useful for doing things like automatically scaling maps, and also as an extra data source to be used during cross-correlation of other geodata databases to quickly find possible matches and eliminate obvious mismatches.

We have several possible sources for this sort of data, which should allow large numbers of these radii to be assigned quite rapidly.

For example:

  • The CC0 Flickr shapefile database contains a large number of bounding boxes which could easily be used to generate approximate radii -- I am currently working on assignments of WOEIDs to Wikidata items which will enable these values to be estimated very simply from their database
  • Both Wikipedia and Wikidata have point data and nesting hierarchy data for places and administrative areas, which could easily be used to assign approximate radii to administrative areas such as parishes, counties, regions, and even countries.

I think we can do this with existing properties, if we use the current radius (P2120) or diameter (P2386) (see below) property, qualified with sourcing circumstances (P1480) of circa (Q5727902) to indicate that it is very approximate, with no indicator of precision. with a suitably large tolerance, (see below)

I'd like to do this -- what do other people think? -- The Anome (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I mean, sure, we could add radii or even diameter (P2386) to every geographical object in existence already, if one adds the appropriate tolerance (e.g. London (Q84)'s radius (P2120) is '30±20 kilometre (Q828224)'. Whether this is really necessary is as open a question as whether country (P17) is necessary on every geographical object as well. Mahir256 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right about the use of a very large tolerance value instead of the "circa" qualifier. You might also be right about "diameter", as "radius" implies a well-defined centre, which is not always the case. I'd be happy with the use of either radius or diameter to define the approximating circle. I've amended my proposal accordingly. -- The Anome (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Could not "area" be used in the same way? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. Consider, for example, near-linear features like Lac-Mégantic (Q142020), which may have much larger bounding radii than their area would suggest if they were round-ish. This is not to disparage "area", though -- we should have both! -- The Anome (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, take a look at the current proposal for Wikidata:Property_proposal/Sister_projects#map zoom level: which describes what is, in my opinion, exactly the wrong way to do this, in several different ways. -- The Anome (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Revised proposal: assignment of "diameter" to geographical features[edit]

Here's my revised proposal. We should be able to add the diameter (P2386) property to geographical objects, together with a substantial error bound. This should be interpreted as defining the diameter of an approximate bounding circle that would contain that object. If other editors agree with this, I should be able to provide this data for large numbers of geographical objects, and can apply for bot permission to add it. -- The Anome (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Even if all we get is an order of magnitude level of precision then I can see the value in this. My only question is whether we want to use diameter (P2386) or a specific property ("bounding box on map") as geographical objects that happen to be circular or cylindrical, or contain circular or cylindrical elements, could end up with two diamater statements with very different values. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
There are pros and cons in both approaches, and no single number is really sufficient to summarize a shape. Really, the only proper way to record the shape of a thing is to have a detailed shapefile. I'd prefer something simple that sort-of-works right now, to something like latitude/longitude bounding boxes that look superficially more sophisticated but are actually less mathematically elegant (potential for misleading over-precision -- consider horizontal vs. diagonal features, which have the same bounding box but a difference of 40% in size, changes of scale on the ground, singularities at the poles and wrap-round at 180 longitude), and aren't much better in practice on typical wiggly-shaped geographic features. (The five parameters of a bounding ellipsoid would actually be better, but is way too complex a solution for not nearly enough improvement over circles or boxes) We can have both, if desired.-- The Anome (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
the shape of Stockholm
Shapes can look really awful. Where can we find a standard for how such a diameter should be measured? Will such a statement be given anything but guesses in the majority of cases? Most of the shape-files available out there are in most cases rough approximations. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. But rough approximations are better than nothing, and I can add them easily from a number of sources. -- The Anome (talk)
By the way, regarding algorithms, I can think of several. The simplest and crudest is to estimate some sort of maximum distance from the notional centre point we already have on Wikidata. If we start with a bounding box, for example, we can calculate distance to the furthest corner and nearest edge, double these, and take these as the limits of the interval for the diameter. Alternatively, we can do this with the centre of the bounding box, or the centroid of a shape. Finally, if we have a true shapefile, we can solve the smallest-circle problem, which gives a unique answer -- and would work fine for, for example, Stockholm. -- The Anome (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
If the purpose is to be able to fit a feature onto a map, coordinate of northernmost point (P1332), coordinate of southernmost point (P1333), coordinate of easternmost point (P1334) and coordinate of westernmost point (P1335) seem more appropriate and meaningful to me (e.g. the map library I'm most familiar with, Leaflet, has various functions for fitting the map to include certain coordinates but nothing I'm aware of that works with distances). Diameter seems too vague, how exactly should someone interpret the diameter of a long thin shape? Is it the longest length in any direction? the shortest length? the length from north to south? the length from east to west? the average of all four options? - Nikki (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, probably Northernmost + Southernmost Latitude and Easternmost + Westernmost Longitude is more appropriate also for me. --ValterVB (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
That would as well. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 17:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"coordinate of northernmost point" etc. are not lat/long values defining a bounding box, they're extremal points. Extremal points are not always available, and they can't be derived from lat/long bounding boxes, which often are. But I can add these too, where known. My central concern is that at the moment, we have no concept of the size of geographical features, and any data, even very imprecise data (providing that lack of precision is clearly represented in the data) is better than none. I'm happy to generate anything the community desires, if it can be implemented easily. But extremal points are not viable for the sort of low-quality data we have freely available to us in the public domain. -- The Anome (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, here's a straw man proposal. How about two properties: diameter of enclosing circle (a distance), and centre of enclosing circle (a point), that is not necessarily the same as the point given from other data, for example data which gives capital cities as representative points for countries... -- The Anome (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
A dedicated property which defines what the diameter means would be better than using the existing property, but I still don't understand why it has to be a circle and how that is better than storing the bounding box. Neither shape is perfect but boxes are more flexible than circles and the map things I'm familiar with (OSM and Leaflet) also use bounding boxes not circles with diameters. The fact that some of the data you have is already bounding boxes seems like even more of a reason to store bounding boxes rather than storing data derived from it, because then we have a citable source for the statements. - Nikki (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure some of what is above has been considered before (outside the context of the current sister project proposal). I'd have to dig up the property proposal though. --Izno (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
We certainly need something to serve the purpose of encoding the rough size of irregularly shaped geographic objects, or people are just going to encode "zoom level" which is the worst of all worlds. Diameter and lat/long bounding box seem like the best two options, at the moment: diameter is my favorite because it's just a single number, but if people like bounding boxes, I'd happy to use that, too. Without creating a new data type, we could encode the bounding box by two geographic points, one at the northeast corner and the other at the southwest corner. -- The Anome (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Based on this discussion, I'm increasingly of the opinion that a bounding box is the best option. This allows the mapping program to optimise the display for a given shape in the current window size and shape - a portrait window and landscape window need very different zoom levels to optimally display Chile (Q298) for example, which is not possible to convey using only a diameter. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 19:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Properties for the northeast and southwest corners of the bounding box sounds good to me. - Nikki (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Nikki: Yes, that sounds excellent. If someone wants to make that proposal, I'd be happy to populate those properties for as many items as I have data for. I'm up to 28000 WOEID assignments already, so I should be able to populate at least those many straight away -- and I have up to a couple of hundred thousand more that I could potentially populate once I've resolved the WOEID assignments. -- The Anome (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The precision on a geocoordinate itself was meant to capture this a little. A church would have a higher precision than a city, a city a higher one than a country, etc. Why does that not work? (This is an honest question) --Denny (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Because the size of a thing is not the same either as the precision, or the accuracy, of its coordinates. In the spirit of my example above we might have an object 30m across whose position we only know to the nearest 1km, or somewhere like London, which is 60km across, but has a conventional notional centre point (at Charing Cross) with a position we know to within +/- 1m. Conflating the two kinds of interval might be convenient, but we're not doing ourselves any favours by doing so.-- The Anome (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Several reasons: 1, if we want to reference a source, we can only say what the source says. It might be more or less precise than we think it should be for the size of the object, but that doesn't change the fact that that source says those are the coordinates. 2, coordinate precision is not a very intuitive thing. I expect that people entering coordinates based on maps will typically just copy whatever the coordinates say at the point they choose and use whatever precision is chosen by default when they add the statement, which is likely to be overprecise. 3, IIRC, some other tools which can add coordinates always select the same precision. 4, it doesn't give enough information to help people usefully fit the object onto a map (see the Chile example above). The first point means that we can't any have useful correlation between precision and size, the second and third mean that even if we did, it would be very hard to get useful data from it and the fourth means that even if the first three weren't an issue, it's not informative enough actually solve one of the problems we want to solve. - Nikki (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
From what I know, our Coord-templates in Wikipedia uses "type:city(1000000)" or something like that to help identifying how large zoom you have to make into a map. Of course, that is very rough, but help us separate Tokyo for random village. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Problems with IE[edit]

Hi. Does anyone know why I get permanently the message ”An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed. Details: Forbidden” when I want to save something? I use IE11/Win 8.1 and for a while I can not save anything. Thanks. Haptokar (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got an older browser that's no longer fully supported. Some functions might indeed not work. Upgrade to a newer version of IE or use another browser. Mbch331 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this is related to this problem? --Succu (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@Haptokar: if you are using a computer where you can't install new programs then you can run Firefox portable without installing it --John Cummings (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all. There is no problem with Chrome and Firefox, but only with IE, the browser I use for editing Wikipedia pages and it become frustrating to change browsers. Haptokar (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably is the problem linked by Succu. The developers are looking into the problem. Mbch331 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
when will there be a solution? --Hannes 24 (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Property creators[edit]

Should property creators discuss new properties before creating them? And if yes are there any sanctions if they don't? Example: No discussion found for Wikidata property for authority control, with reciprocal use of Wikidata (Q24075706). @Nono314: Your question here. -- 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This is not a property, but an item. No discussion is necessary before creating items. If your question has another background, please specify. --Srittau (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think Magnus Manske's tool was meant to be used this way. It's just confusing in a multilingual environment to duplicate an item with labels and descriptions in dozens of languages and then edit the label in one language to say something different. No wonder Nono314 didn't understand the change.
    --- Jura 06:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you Jura for shedding some light on what actually happened. Looks like every new technology will be misused...--Nono314 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I removed the labels in other languages as only the English label had been edited to give the new meaning. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


After a failure to save the Q127840 damaged, and no error displayed on my screen. I understood what happened there, when I saw the edits of user Edoderoo. Please, someone to check the code. --Francois-Pier (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

This happens to some items every day, almost all links get removed. A different user every time. Often I have the feeling that a user tried to merge two items. Edoderoo (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
See Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang (Q1373915) and Empress Dowager Xiaozhuang (Q24205685) and the link to vi-wiki. One is a redirect to the other, and the merge action deleted all links to all other languages. Edoderoo (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

New mayor in Burjassot[edit]

I'm trying to change in Q55688 the alcalde. I've checked with the townhall website that it is Rafa García García. But I cannot put the name in the field. I cannot upload it. My options are:

  • Create a Q for Mr García García. (Note: García García is one of the most common surname combinations in the Spanish speaking world).
  • Other option I don't know.

Any ideas?

B25es (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • You can create the item, but try to add some more statements to it. Some of Q14135772 might apply to him as well. You could also create an item for "Alcalde of Burjassot" and add that to both with position held (P39). If you feel like it, you could do the entire list of alcaldes, etc.
    --- Jura 09:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A Wikidata concept doesn't point to a name but to a person. The person is named Rafa García García and thus the newly created concept should be named Rafa García García and not Mr García García. If you believe that there are multiple persons named Rafa García García write a description of the concept that specifies which Rafa García García is meant. Furthermore it's good if you add statements to the new Rafa García García concept. ChristianKl (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It's at Rafa García García (Q24199473). Interestingly, we already had an article on him, but it was mixed-up on an item with some other person with the same name.
      --- Jura 11:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

New type of entity ? entity whose existence is not proven[edit]

Papremi (Q3894902) seems to be an antique capital of Egypt that has not been actually discovered but is mentioned into some old greek texts. I created an item for this kind of entities, Papremi (Q3894902) whose definition is precisely that. Please comment if it's a weak definition or if this is a duplicate. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

When I read the article about "entity", it does not look like something have to be proven for it to be an entity i.e. "assumed entity" == "entity". Only one man has said that Eric VIII of Sweden ever has existed, and I am not sure he was very well informed. It is possible that his record only was propaganda. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Then I named it wrong. I meant an entity that is mentioned on text that have or might not have existed according to recent historical datas or historian point of views. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I do not think it is important to use a scientifically exact definition of the word "entity" here. The important thing is to describe the nature of a claim. We have mythical entities like the norse god Odin, who is a historical person according to some records. This very Odin is then also #2 in one version of all lists of Swedish kings and an alien in a science-fiction universe. He is also a character in computer games etc etc. There is a continuum of myths/fictions/legends/ideas and sometimes they are entangled in each other. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
We do have character that may or may not be fictional (Q21070598) and human who may be fictional (Q21070568) used to identify entities like Romulus and Remus (Q2197) and Pope Joan (Q243811). Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


I'm starting to see some Wikidata actions filtering into Wiki Commons which have very disturbing, and seriously unethical implications. For example, at Category:Sitta frontalis I see "English: Velvet-fronted nuthatch (linked to the en:wp article) .... Canadian English: Velvet-fronted Nuthatch ... British English: Velvet-fronted Nuthatch" (neither linked to any wikipedia article). Why is British English not considered synonymous with English (i.e., English as spoken in England)? And if all versions of English are to be considered different, why is there no entry for American [American English, en-us], nor for Indian English (which is the language used where this bird actually occurs)? What I find disturbing and unethical is the worry that the USA has as an act of cultural imperialism taken it on itself to hijack standard English [en] as being synonymous with American [en-us], when it should, if anything be synonymous with standard English English (i.e., English as spoken in England, where the language originated, "en-en"), or if not with that, then with no version of English taking supremacy over any other version of English (as is policy, though frequently not practice, at English wikipedia). - MPF (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hoi, English means "it does not matter what flavour it is". Effectively it is en-us. It is a given do not be a Don Quichote, it just does not work that way. Having alternate flavours will make it only more embarassing. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I think what is happening here is that "English" means "whatever the enwiki article is called", and the rest are taken from Wikidata labels, so no particular variant of English is being artificially preferred in this process. There really is no "standard English", and hasn't been for a long time, as the majority of English speakers, both first-language and second-language, live outside the UK. -- The Anome (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
In which case, with [en] being for "generalised English", there also needs to be a separate entry for American English, as well as British English, Canadian English, etc., to prove even-handedness. - MPF (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
The more sensible option would be to deprecate en-GB and en-CA; the number of circumstances where this is actually useful is trivially small, and the potential for confusion is too high to make having them useful. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
That may be enough for English, but this cannot work for all the languages variants in the world. For example, we currently have a "Chinese" label, which is half traditional and half simplified Chinese, and often very different from Hong-Kong, Mainland or Taiwan labels. What I would like to see is a good fallback mechanism if only one of the different possibilities is filled, then it is enough to create a default EN-US locale, and maybe one day completely remove the default "English" or "Chinese" label. Koxinga (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess the main problem is that we do not have enough users here to fill all these labels with local variants of a language. The differences between sv-se and sv-fi demands that we have to separate them sometimes. But I am not aware of one single user here who know enough about sv-fi (Swedish as it is spoken in Finland) to fill all our items with labels in that version. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC) (Who studied Northumbrian English in school)
The problem here (at Wikidata) is the interface, which makes it much easier to not maintain multiple variants. The sensible thing to do, in my opinion, would be to improve the interface so that maintaining n variants of a language is no longer n times as much work. For example, for variants which are mostly the same, it could collapse them by default and any changes would apply to all of the variants. When it is a term which varies regionally, there could be a way to expand it and edit individual variants (which would then stay expanded). That would allow regional variants while vastly reducing the amount of effort needed to keep the rest of the labels and descriptions in sync. - Nikki (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That's mostly commenting on editing labels/descriptions here. For Commons, it would probably make sense to only show regional names if they're actually different. - Nikki (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Trying to edit Commons link at Q587675[edit]

Hello, I'm attempting to update the Commons link mentioned above to go to Category:Monseñor Óscar Arnulfo Romero International Airport, but when I try to do so, I get the error message "An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed." Any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks. Graham87 (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Never mind; it's an IE11 thing. It worked fine on Firefox. Graham87 (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #210[edit]

Current property deletion requests[edit]

"Current property deletion requests" in watchlist is outdated. Maybe some admin can add the new ones? --Edgars2007 (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

SPARQL/WDQ help needed[edit]

Hi. I try to generate a list similar with ro:Listă de localități din județul Cluj for Listeriabot. The query I came up with is:

TREE[182624][][131] AND (CLAIM[31:532] OR CLAIM[31:659103] OR CLAIM[31:16858213] OR CLAIM[31:640364])

The problem is this list mixes settlements from different administrative levels no matter how I sort it. I want to have either:

  1. the villages from a commune under the respective commune - no idea how to ask for that
  2. only the villages and cities in alphabetical order - I expected to get that by removing CLAIM[31:659103], but that just makes autolist return an empty list, presumably because tree returns something else.

Any idea how I can get one of the lists above?--Strainu (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't analyze WDQ, but judging by rowiki list, this is what you want? Those are items, where located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) has value, that has located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)=Cluj County (Q182624) (in some level). --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This will be better. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the links Edgars2007, removing communes for your query allowed me to get the second version.--Strainu (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Copying statements and pasting them on another item[edit]

Is there a gadget out there which can copy a statement and paste it on another item? I found Wikidata:Paper_cuts#Copy.2FPaste_a_statement from almost three years ago where quite a few people thought it would be a good idea, but that's all. - Nikki (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata Module:Taxobox[edit]

@PhiLiP, FelixReimann, Succu, Infovarius: As I don't seem to get anywhere, (no response since 10 March) with implementing the WD taxobox on cywiki, I've suggested that the only way forward is for me to automatically create all infoboxes similar to one of these here on WD on my userspace. I can then harvest the info onto a csv file and write to cywiki. Any problem with this? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: There is just nobody interested in Cymru wiki.-- 13:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right. Maybe we should all just work on one wiki - Chinese? Thanks for your positive comments. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
You're right, Llywelyn2000: China has taken us.-- 14:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but I can not help, because I have no LUA knowledge. But maybe the ArticlePlaceholder extension is helpfull for you (taxon 1, taxon 2). See Lydias email. --Succu (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Succu. We have a discussion about enabling ArticlePlaceholder, which is still open. I should think we may agree in 3 weeks - when technical issues are sorted. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Relations of Instances of branch of science (Q2465832) to Instances of academic discipline (Q11862829)[edit]

While working on the relation of musicology (Q164204) to its branches music history (Q10590700), ethnomusicology (Q208365) and systematic musicology (Q7663779), I came across the question, whether Instances of branch of science (Q2465832) are part of (P361) or subclass of (P279) an Instance of academic discipline (Q11862829). There appears to be no consistency in Wikidata. You might see the problem in this Query. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good question. Partitive relations and subclass relations for abstract concepts are a little hard to distinguish. I would tend to favor the use of part of (P361) in this case as I'm not even sure why we would consider, for example, biophysics (Q7100) to be a class in the first place - what could be the meaning of an "instance" of biophysics? biophysicist (Q14906342) is certainly a class that has instances, but the subject itself? Further discussion on this perhaps ought to take place somewhere under Wikidata:WikiProject Ontology. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: This questions is related to the nature of sciences. If science is a class of theories that describe something, then for example theory of relativity (Q43514) View with Reasonator is an instance of physics, that describe some interraction in the universe (and a definition of the universe itself). If I take a dictionary, a science is "a set of consistent set of knowledege related to the observation of some facts". Then this is a class of knowledge. It then make sense to classify "physics" as a specific kind of those knowledges, hence a subclass. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@TomT0m, Dr.üsenfieber: No, I don't agree that science is a "class of theories that describe something". Much of science is not theoretical. And science encompasses the process of developing understanding, not just a particular state of understanding. "Physics" includes the ways in which physicists think about and model and look at the world - that's not a theory, that's essentially a "worldview". I would say theory of relativity (Q43514) View with Reasonator is an instance of "physical theory" if we had such a class, or just "theory" as it is now. But I can't ascribe any meaning to the idea of an instance of "physics", or any other scientific field or academic discipline. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: The definition is taken from a real dictionary, hence a reference (I took the first definition in a french dictionary). Any reference for you ? : 2 . systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 1 . a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. => seems consistent with a class of theories, in an extended sense, and as a class of knowledge). 3 . any of the branches of natural or physical science. consistent with sciences as subclasses of each over, considering any discipline might be a subfield of physics if you are a materialist. 4. systematized knowledge in general. => the most generic class regrouping any theory or fact observed, includes maths.
Larousse (in french) : my initial source. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Your definitions and references are fine; it's your interpretations that I disagree with. None of the dictionary definitions uses the word "class", and certainly none of them restricts the meaning to "theories" - specifically they talk about "observation and experimentation" and "systematization" which involve methods not theories or laws. Something "showing the operation of general laws" is not the same as the collection of those general laws, and one of those laws is not logically an "instance" of "showing the operation of general laws". Yes they can be arranged in some form of hierarchy, but hierarchy is not identical to class/subclass trees. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Then we are in a similar situation similar to religions, who are both a set of practices and a set of belief. Systematization is a polysemic word that can both refer to the action and to the result. You make a good point with this however, science is also a practice. That said, a class, by definition, is a set of object sharing some common characteristics. Here we are clearly in that case : we can recognise a scientific work if the work followed the best practices of the science of this time, and is characterized by the object of the research. This is something common to all scientific work. It's definitely not just a group of practices or knowledge which as parts as any new work can be recognized as science or not whether or not it meets the definition. That would be a theory for example, which could be divided into components (subtheories?), or just a set of observation, which also could be composite and definite (let's take the set of all observation a specific experiment measured). author  TomT0m / talk page 06:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge items for picture books?[edit]

Is no label (Q10666342) the same as picture book (Q254554)? I don't read French so I'm not quite sure about the differences between an fr:Album (livre) (which is the only site link of Q10666342) and an fr:Album illustré. I sort of get the idea that the former is more about children's books, which is why I think these items might possibly be merged. Samwilson (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The first refers to the concept of "Album" as a form of book (a special French meaning?) while the second does indeed refer to picture books. If they should be merged it should be done with the articles on frwiki first. I don't know enough about this to say more, but as long as there are separate frwiki articles these can't be merged. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Matching Commons Creator templates with Wikidata[edit]

Hello, out of 20k Creator templates with authority control data on Commons only 300 do not have a link to Wikidata (no q-code). They all can be found at User:Jarekt/a. What would be the best way to match them? I was reading about query service. User:Zolo suggested mix-n-match Tool for larger problem of matching all 3k c:Category:Creator templates without Wikidata link, but I would like to concentrate on Creator templates with authority control. Any suggestions for easiest way to do it? --Jarekt (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe ?
--- Jura 14:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Jura that looks exactly like a tool I was looking for. I will see if I can get it to work. Thanks --Jarekt (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


In the English language the word "arm" is a polynsym. It happens to both refer to the upper arm as well as refering to the full arm.

Q43471 is currently named "arm" and is linked to the FMA concept meaning upper arm.

On the other hand Q43471 has the German name "Arm" which only means get's full arm and doesn't mean upper arm. In German the word can include the hand but doesn't have to. The description suggest that in this case the whole Free upper limb is meant (Hand + Forearm + Upper Arm).

Q43471 is linked to UBERON_0001460 which describes the upperarm + forearm.

There's an existing concept for the upper arm:

Q43471 also has names in a lot of other languages where I don't know what the word means. Is there a process for untangling the mess?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianKl (talk • contribs) at 14:04, 26 May 2016‎ (UTC).

"refer to the upper arm as well as refering to the full arm" Really? Do you have a source for that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The FMA concept "Arm" means the upper arm. That's easily verificable by seeing that the Free upper limb is made up of the parts "Arm", "Forearm" and "Hand". The Forearm in FMA is not part of the Arm. NBCI's MeSH Controlled Vocabulary defines "Arm" as: "The superior part of the upper extremity between the SHOULDER and the ELBOW."
For extra fun NBCI's MeSH Controlled Vocabulary defines "Arm Bones" as "The bones of the free part of the upper extremity including the HUMERUS; RADIUS; and ULNA." Radius and Ulna are bones in the forearm that are not between shoulder and elbow. That definition of arm bones doesn't include the bones in the hand hand. Webster defines "Arm" as " : a human upper limb; especially : the part between the shoulder and the wrist". The human upper limb includes the hand. Thus we have at least three distinct concepts that are named "Arm" in English.ChristianKl (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
In every day English "arm" means either the upper arm and forearm as a whole, or any part of your upper arm or forearm when specificity does not matter. It may sometimes include the hand, but usually does not. "Arm" is not used to refer only to the upper arm. "Upper arm" is less likely to be used than "fore arm" when specificity does not matter, but "arm" is more likely to be used in all cases. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
"fore arm" is no valid term in English. "forearm" is the term. In any case scientific usage of the term "arm" matters. Because "arm" means "upper arm" in the scientific sense of the word, Q43471 is currently linked FMA24890. If we decide that Q43471 refers to forearm + upper arm it shouldn't link to FMA24890. Q43471 should then also get a English description that doesn't just say "body part" but that makes it clear what's meant. Then Q379859 should get FMA24890. The problem is that various interwiki links do think that Q43471 currently describes the upper arm. For example the Occitan Wikipedia ( shows an image of the upper arm and talks about Os bones being about the "umèrus" with sounds like humerus (the bone of the upper arm) but with doesn't mention the bones of the forearm.ChristianKl (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Importing Wiki Loves Monuments lists into Wikidata[edit]

Dear all

I’m posting this to start a discussion on migrating the information in the Wiki Loves Monuments (WLM) database to Wikidata as part of the Connected Open Heritage project. There have been discussions about the work previously here and here.

Below we have outlined what we can see as the potential approaches and issues with each approach. We would very much appreciate your feedback including the following questions:

  • Which approach do you think would work and why?
  • Are there ways to mitigate or overcome the issues highlighted?
  • Are there any other approaches or issues that have been missed?
  • If the combination of the two approaches outlined is a good approach, what combination would work best? Would this depend on the country or could universal guidelines be used?


Wiki Loves Monuments lists for different different countries are constructed in different ways:

  • Some countries use only official immovable heritage lists
  • Some countries add sites onto official national and regional registries e.g South Africa.
  • Some countries do not have official lists.

In addition some countries have lists with unclear documentations as to the source of the data and methodology used to select objects.

There appear to be three approaches to importing the WLM database into Wikidata taking the construction of existing databases into consideration:

  1. Import directly from the WLM database into Wikidata.
  2. Import from the reference sources used to created the WLM databases where known.
  3. A combination of the two approaches.


There seem to be a number of issues with each approach:

Importing directly from the WLM database into Wikidata[edit]

  • By importing straight from the WLM database rather than going back to the sources there might be no referenceable sources connected to the items created, potentially we will be creating up to 1,384,000 unreferenced items. However this could be solved (in the short term) by an "imported from Monument database", wlm-id:<id>, date:<date>" reference. This is not ideal but is essentially how importing from Wikipedia works today.
  • Even if the data is based on official lists there is no simple way of determining which changes have been made to the data since the time it was imported.
  • Whilst facts are not copyrightable there might be elements of the Wikipedia lists (and hence the monuments database) which are copyrightable. If so there is an issue in that the Wikidata license is more restrictive than that of Wikipedia.

Import from the reference sources used to created the WLM databases[edit]

  • Some WLM countries add sites onto official national and regional registries e.g South Africa and some countries do not have national registers.
  • Some of the original official documents/lists might be copyrighted. It is currently unclear what copyright restrictions might apply if we are looking at importing the WLM lists/Monument database vs. the original lists that the WLM lists are derived/ copied from?
  • This approach would not make use of the work that went into standardising the info from the various sources for the Monuments database.

Again we would very much like your feedback on this


John Cummings (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Would it be possible to import the data from both sources, i.e. from the monuments database (corresponding to the data contained in the monuments lists mostly sitting on Wikipedia) and from an official source (where available)? – In a second step, identical double entries could be removed (keeping the one that is referenced to the official source). In a third step, differences in double entries could be dealt with (in some cases we may want to keep them as they are; in some cases we may want to report errors back to the maintainer of the official source; and in some cases we may have to correct the entry on Wikipedia). And in a fourth step, missing data could be added (in Switzerland, for example, the official source contains labels only in the official language of a given territory, while we should be able to generate lists in various languages; translation would most easily be done in a spreadsheet, translating all the monuments labels in one go in order to remain consistent across the lists). --Beat Estermann (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I assume you already read the past discussions on Wikidata-WLM, right? Nemo 14:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have certainly followed some of them. But I'm not following the developments closely enough to judge whether one or the other point made a couple of years ago still holds given the actual development stage of Wikidata. - Are you referring to anything specific? --Beat Estermann (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a search page of 81 emails stretching back five years isn't exactly enlightening. A ink to a specific post, or even better a statement here rather thank a link, would be much more helpful. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Beat's option of importing in stages from multiple sources is preferable to create something new and more comprehensive than just the WLM database, with the process of de-duplication, and supplementation built in (We also need to refine some of the UK list to exclude the 500k grade 2 listed buildings as it's just too much for Wikidata). Additionally, referring someone to a massive database of emails isn't much help as it implies that this isn't a place to ask questions until you've trawled archived emails. Asking a question here might get you a better, up to date answer, and maybe a little assistance in executing your idea. Battleofalma (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Exclude Grade II? Sad face. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps not all, but 500k is too much, so there's got to be some sensible way of reducing that to a Wikidata acceptable number. We don't need all those Naval forts... Battleofalma (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
HashtagNotAllGrade2ListedBuildings Battleofalma (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
HashtagSomeMonumentsMatter? --Izno (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
If Wikidata cannot currently ingest 500,000 items for listed buildings in the UK then perhaps we can say 'yes but not yet'? John Cummings (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently we appear to have 2324 Grade II listed buildings, out of a possible 370,337.
@John Cummings: Am I right in thinking that an upload for the UK has already been done? Comparing the results of this query: with the numbers in brackets at Wikidata:WikiProject_UK_and_Ireland/monuments we seem to have a reasonably full set of scheduled monuments and Grade I and II* listed buildings, and apparently a somewhat over-supply of Scottish category A and category B listed structures. Jheald (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes I think a per country approach should be taken, and for the larger countries, a per state approach. Yes to the translation idea and I suggest using street address in native language, and for trees, parks, and other objects, the native title. Later languages that eventually create their own labels can always move the native names to an alias. Yes to the idea of importing referencing the old monumentsdatabase, but only for those regions that can't do it any other (better) way. Yes to the 500k GradeII dataset - I have seen some of these and think they are great. Who said this was too much? If there has been a RFC on this which lost, then let's just make sure all Grade II listed buildings with Wikipedia articles are at least properly referenced and part of the package. Let's do this the wikiway: start small and work from a working pilot per country. Jane023 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

La Zarzuela en Wikipedia[edit]

Dear Colleagues we have presented to the Wikimedia Foundation, the IEGrant proposal "ZARZUELA: The Hispanic Musical Theater in Wikipedia": Classification, Digitization and Description of Zarzuela Sound Archive and Iconographic Files in Wikipedia. Zarzuela is the hispanic genuine musical theater (XVII- XX centuries) a mass spectacle -dramatic, lyrical, musical and choreographic combination- for more than three centuries. As a result we find composers, librettists and scripts of La Zarzuela in the Iberian Peninsula, Argentina, Paraguay, Cuba, Mexico... There are also written Zarzuelas in the various languages of the Iberian Peninsula and America (castillian, basque, galician, catalan, majorcan, yopará, etc.) You can find the project linking:

If you like this project we would be very grateful if you sign the "Endorsements". We are looking for your support. Thanks a lot. --Jacinta Grey (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Queridos compañeros, hemos presentado a los IEGrants un proyecto denominado " ZARZUELA: The Hispanic Musical Theater in Wikipedia" que mediante la clasificación, digitalización, y paso a dominio público pretende poner al alcance de todos el archivo sonoro e iconográfico de la Zarzuela y de paso recuperar muchísimos contenidos sobre el teatro musical hispano para la Wikipedia. Este es un trabajo de investigación y digitalización del Archivo sobre la Zarzuela del coleccionista Arturo Gil Pérez-Andújar, desarrolllado hasta ahora por la Fundación de la Zarzuela y al que nos hemos sumado varios wikipedistas con el asesoramiento de la Asociación Wikimedia España (las primeras gestiones fueron con Santi Navarro y luego nos ha ayudado muchísimo y pacientemente Jesús Tramullas). Podéis ver el proyecto completo en:

Hemos sido seleccionados y estamos en la última ronda pendientes de la decisión última de la Fundación Wikimedia.

Este es un proyecto global en el ámbito hispano y latinoamericano, pues la Zarzuela fue un fenómeno cultural y musical que mezcló artistas y creadores de las dos orillas. Y que tuvo repercusión importante, pues era muy popular, allende los mares y también en toda la Península Ibérica (llegando a escribirse zarzuelas en catalán, vasco, gallego y en alguna lengua nativa de América): Para conseguir que la Fundación Wikimedia elija este proyecto, entre otros, necesitamos todo el apoyo de los wikipedistas, por lo que si os gusta la propuesta, sería genial contar con vuestro "endorsement" en español o en inglés al final del proyecto:

Una vez que consigamos la IEGrant, empezaremos a organizar todo el trabajo de clasificación y digitalización, buscando los recursos bibliográficos y hemerográficos digitalizados que permitan mejorar, ampliar y crear nuevos contenidos. La idea es organizar un edithtaton sobre este tema durante 2017.

Esperamos vuestro apoyo. Saludos --Jacinta Grey (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

International Standard Name Identifier embarrassment[edit]

ISNI (P213) still doesn't have the "external-id" datatype. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

You are free to comment at User:Addshore/Identifiers/0. Calling it an "embarrassment" will not get you what you want. --Izno (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Done that, more than once; and made suggestions on how to move forward, here and elsewhere. Nothing happened. Since I want people to know about this embarrassing state of affairs, I think you will find your latter statement is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Viking River Cruises[edit]


I want to clean up the Viking River Cruises listing: Viking River Cruises (Q2524174) as it is incorrect.

Parent company is Viking Cruises

Subsidiaries: Viking River Cruises and Viking Ocean Cruises

Most of the listings are under Viking River Cruises, however the website reference lists the parent company.

This is my first Wikidata edit and I'm not sure where to do this.

Thanks!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cruiser (talk • contribs) at 21:13, 26 May 2016‎ 2015 (UTC).

Approaches to keep "articles without items" and "items without statements" low?[edit]

Some statistics and lists:

articles without items per wiki
items without statements per wiki
Wikidata:Database reports/without claims by site
unconnected items for a wiki

Personally, I find that creating items with PetScan (Q23665536) and directly adding a statement can help keeping articles off these lists. Adding at least one statement (e.g. with P31) makes it also more likely that other statements are added.

For PetScan to work well, one would need to identify a series of categories that work well for a given wiki.
--- Jura 08:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I follow Lsjbot to keep the record low, but he is hard to compete with. I have not become a friend of PetScan yet. I use Autolist, but a large problem is that Autlist is halted by serverproblems a little to often. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
You might want to try PetScan: items without claims categories/svwiki includes links. I could also add some for svwiki to the "Examples" list on the top right corner at PetScan. --- Jura 10:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, I can recommend Category:Bot-created articles without any statements and Category:Bot-created articles without P31 (106,000 members) to find even smaller categories. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd rather not use those as there is/are no statement(s) that could be added to all items that would be created for these.
--- Jura 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Connections of pages from Wikiquote: help needed![edit]

Please join this discussion -> Wikidata_talk:Wikiquote#A_looot_of_unconnected_pages. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 09:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of students as a property of Universities[edit]

Is it possible to get the number of students together with the date as a property of universities?

For example, Q309988 should have "25196" in "WS 2015/16" (or 17.12.2015) as a property, so that edits like this are no longer necessary. --MartinThoma (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This can be done with
or . Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I would rather use population (P1082) with qualifiers as appropriate. "student population" is common terminology. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Izno: Do you mean something like ? If so then I see that as equally valid. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 13:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Yup, though we may want to refine it--most schools (in America) report "undergrad students" separately from "grad students", so perhaps there are some subclasses to deal with or another "applies to part" relation to establish. --Izno (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Well reporting undergrand and postgrad students separately is just a matter of there being appropriate items with the relevant relations defined and having two claims for population rather than one. It wouldn't surprise me if the items already existed, but I haven't actually looked. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 14:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
"Student population" of a University can be misinterpreted as the number of people actually living inside the Campus area. Often our University-items are regarded as "instance of:Buildings" (I do not like that, but that is how it looks like) and buildings definitely can have a normal population. Here all post graduate students today are employed by the University, so I do not think they are counted as students at all. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Not a lot of students count (P2196) used yet: 32 --Atlasowa (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

New RfC about standards for property proposal discussions[edit]

I have begun a new RfC to try and prevent future controversy similar to that regarding the speedy creation of cites (P2860). It seeks to determine if property proposal discussions should have a minimum duration and/or if property creators should be independent of discussions/events that resulted in the proposal.

You are invited to comment at Wikidata:Requests for comment/Standards for property proposal discussions. Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Merging two items[edit]

I'm new here so decided to ask first.

This Relation (Q230259) (ENG) and this no label (Q4339855) (RUS) are two disambig pages about the same general concept.

However the second one also referenced by ky, tg, uk wikis. I don't know these languages but seems that from these only ru and uk are disambigs all others are not.

What is the best way to resolve this? I would say good step would be to delete Q4339855 and relink ru+uk to Q230259. Just merging Q4339855 into Q230259 is not a good idea as seems ky+tg are not disambigs but specific to philosophy. Fuxx (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, the disambiguation links should be on their own item. --Izno (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding unknown values for dates?[edit]

Hi all,

I'm currently doing a (slow) import of historic UK MPs. Many of these have unknown birth/death dates, and I'm keen to represent this data rather than just have a missing P569/570 value. Many entries (eg Jean Gery (Q3172296) have "unknown value" for these dates, which is exactly what I want to use, but I can't figure out how to add this - either in the editing interface or in an upload tool like QuickStatements. Am I missing a trick somewhere? Andrew Gray (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, when you go to create the claim after clicking edit, there's two icons on the left of the entry bar. One of those allows you to set a rank. The other allows you to set some special values; no value shows up there, as does unknown value, and some value is the default. --Izno (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Aha, right! Got it. I think I'd only ever tried clicking on the 'rank' button there. Doesn't look like there's an easy way to do it via QuickStatements or similar, though. Hmm. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The speed of a speed[edit]

The item speed of light (Q2111) has the same value for numeric value (P1181), speed (P2052) and conversion to SI unit (P2370) (299,792,458 metre per second). I think we cannot speak of the speed of a speed as a speed is just a quantity, not a physical body having a location (just as Planck mass (Q592634) does not need the property mass (P2067)). Moreover, if there is already conversion to SI unit (P2370), is not numeric value (P1181) superfluous? -- IvanP (talk) 07:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the use of each of these properties is probably correct, except possibly speed. Numeric value is necessary because someone may want to know the speed; conversion to SI unit may be necessary because someone may want to jump from c units to another unit of measurement. "speed" seems okay since the domain is any item that moves. --Izno (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
speed (P2052) doesn't seem right to me there, for the reason you gave. Light has a speed, that speed doesn't have a speed of its own (where would it be going?), it has a numeric value (i.e. numeric value (P1181)). - Nikki (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is probably "light" (or something like that) who should have "speed:299,792,458 m/s", while the speed of light should/could be regarded as a unit. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sitelink to redirect - need opinions[edit]

In centimetre (Q174728) @Cycn: has deleted sitelink from it.wikpedidia because is a redirect, but in notability we say «Currently, the community has chosen to have redirects allowed, although the necessary changes have yet to be deployed on Wikidata.» My opinion is that we can add redirect in sitelink, the second problem specific to this item is that in it.wikidata we need to have the redirect because is used a lot in template, without the sitelink we can't add a link to the unit page using wikidata, so we need some other opinion. (nb. in it.wikipedia we have other redirect used in the same manner) --ValterVB (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd really like feedback on this. As of now adding redirects isn't implemented, but people keep doing it and, appart from Valter, I only get wishful thinking in stead of arguments about it. "It should be possible" isn't a reason to do it, it should be implemented. So I hope this pushes the issue to implement this, as it was decided it should be implemented, or the issue should be re-evaluated to the point that the consensus states that adding redirects is never an option. Either is fine by me, as long as it's clear. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 19:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I only add an information. There are a lot of these redirects in sitelinks:
If these redirects will be removed, in itwiki we have to re-create the articles, because items like centimetre (Q174728) can't stay without a sitelink. --Rotpunkt (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
They can't? - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 19:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, the sitelinks are always fundamental. They are needed (1) when you are reading quantities with units of measurement: in a module I read from Wikidata 30 picometre (datavalue.value.amount=30, datavalue.value.unit=Q192274) and I want to show "30 picometre" I need the sitelink from Q192274 to the article w:en:picometre (2) sitelink are always needed when traversing items used in properties/qualifiers through arbitrary access and you want to show the link to the current traversed item. --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your reverts User:Fomafix regarding redirects to dewiki. --Succu (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Why? --Fomafix (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

be_x_old or be-tarask[edit]

The Wikipedia is In Wikidata pages at interlinks is be_x_old . Why that difference? Xaris333 (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

be_x_old is the old name of that Wikipedia, they changed it to be-tarask some few months(?) ago. Maybe nobody cares about the change? :) --Edgars2007 (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

If the name have changed for Wikipedia, I think we should also change the language code in Wikidata. Xaris333 (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)