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 2016/07.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Project
chat

Administrators'
noticeboard

Development
team

Translators'
noticeboard

Requests
for permissions

Interwiki
conflicts

Requests
for deletions

Property
proposal

Properties
for deletion

Requests
for comment

Partnerships
and imports

Bot
requests

Let's make a Constraint:Contemporary[edit]

I propose to create a new constraint, Constraint:Contemporary, which enforces the following statement:

The start date, or foundation date, or birth date (if exists) of X is before the end date, or dissolution date, or death date (if exists) of Y. Also, the start date, or foundation date, or birth date (if exists) of Y is before the end date, or dissolution date, or death date (if exists) of X. Or viceversa, replacing every X by Y and every Y by X.

... which means that there is a range of time in history (or a discrete value of time in Wikidata) when both X and Y were alive or active.

0 .. .. +∞
X, still not Y X and Y Y, not X
or
Y, still not X Y and X X, not Y

This constraint is particularly relevant for many properties and can only be applied right now using complex constraints.

For example, an approximation as a complex constraint for student (P802)...

Pictogram voting comment.svg Student didn't live during the same time as his/her teacher
death date of person A is before birth date of person B
Violations query: SELECT DISTINCT ?item { { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P802 ?item2; p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth1_node . ?birth1_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P570/psv:P570 ?death2_node . ?death2_node wikibase:timeValue ?death2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth1 > ?death2) } } UNION { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P802 ?item2; p:P570/psv:P570 ?death1_node . ?death1_node wikibase:timeValue ?death1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth2_node . ?birth2_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth2 > ?death1) } } }

... and, therefore, for student of (P1066)...

Pictogram voting comment.svg Teacher didn't live during the same time as his/her student
death date of person A is before birth date of person B
Violations query: SELECT DISTINCT ?item { { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P1066 ?item2; p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth1_node . ?birth1_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P570/psv:P570 ?death2_node . ?death2_node wikibase:timeValue ?death2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth1 > ?death2) } } UNION { SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P1066 ?item2; p:P570/psv:P570 ?death1_node . ?death1_node wikibase:timeValue ?death1; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . ?item2 p:P569/psv:P569 ?birth2_node . ?birth2_node wikibase:timeValue ?birth2; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer . FILTER (?birth2 > ?death1) } } }

Likewise for doctoral student (P185) and doctoral advisor (P184), mother (P25) and child (P40), member of (P463), employer (P108), religion (P140), spouse (P26), partner (P451), educated at (P69), country of citizenship (P27), affiliation (P1416), killed by (P157), etc. --abián 10:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime you can use {{Complex constraint}}, you can see the current reports at Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations. Multichill (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
What you propose sounds like a generalization of {{Constraint:Diff within range}} to use a different item as the source of the time to compare to. @Ivan A. Krestinin:, is this feasible? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Created the Template:Constraint:Contemporary. Now, we need Ivan A. Krestinin's comments. --abián 15:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
{{Constraint:Diff within range}} functionality was extended as suggested by LaddΩ. Lets try. I did not test the code yet. Some bugs can be in it. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivan A. Krestinin. However, for this case, a generalization of {{Constraint:Diff within range}} doesn't seem to be enough. We need to consider also, and simultaneously, the properties for the end date, and dissolution date, and death date. And not only the birth date, but also the start date and the foundation date (for a religion, for an institution, etc.). Otherwise, we will never detect someone tagged as Christian who was born 3000 years ago, or someone who studied in a university that disappeared before this student was born.
Formally, we need to check if the following statement is true:

 (
     (
         A.start time (P580) ≤ B.end time (P582) OR
         A.start time (P580) ≤ B.date of death (P570) OR
         A.start time (P580) ≤ B.dissolved or abolished (P576) OR
         A.date of birth (P569) ≤ B.end time (P582) OR
         A.date of birth (P569) ≤ B.date of death (P570) OR
         A.date of birth (P569) ≤ B.dissolved or abolished (P576) OR
         A.inception (P571) ≤ B.end time (P582) OR
         A.inception (P571) ≤ B.date of death (P570) OR
         A.inception (P571) ≤ B.dissolved or abolished (P576)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED A.start time (P580) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.date of birth (P569) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.inception (P571)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED B.end time (P582) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.date of death (P570) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.dissolved or abolished (P576)
     )
 ) AND (
     (
         B.start time (P580) ≤ A.end time (P582) OR
         B.start time (P580) ≤ A.date of death (P570) OR
         B.start time (P580) ≤ A.dissolved or abolished (P576) OR
         B.date of birth (P569) ≤ A.end time (P582) OR
         B.date of birth (P569) ≤ A.date of death (P570) OR
         B.date of birth (P569) ≤ A.dissolved or abolished (P576) OR
         B.inception (P571) ≤ A.end time (P582) OR
         B.inception (P571) ≤ A.date of death (P570) OR
         B.inception (P571) ≤ A.dissolved or abolished (P576)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED B.start time (P580) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.date of birth (P569) AND
         NOT DEFINED B.inception (P571)
     ) OR (
         NOT DEFINED A.end time (P582) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.date of death (P570) AND
         NOT DEFINED A.dissolved or abolished (P576)
     )
 )

... where A is the subject (an item) with a property P that has the Constraint:Contemporary, and B is the item linked as a value for this property P. If the statement above is false, we have a constraint violation.
Would it be possible to develop this constraint? It would be widely used and, definitely, it would improve the consistency of the data of this project. --abián 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I can be wrong, but this constraint can be represented using several {{Constraint:Diff within range}} and {{Constraint:Item}} constraints. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin: I conclude that you're right, xD your new functionality for {{Constraint:Diff within range}} is enough. I will test it.
Thanks for your help and for your infinite patience. --abián 18:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ivan A. Krestinin: ✓ Partially done and working. Now, we would need to distinguish every {{Constraint:Diff within range}} from the rest. --abián 11:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

how to tag that someone has worked as a coach/manager for a football club/team[edit]

Hi. I would like to import football managers career data, as I've done for footballers in the last few months. But it seems there are different ways to describe it, and I don't know the one we should prefer :

  1. the "Paulo Fonseca" method (Q10346582), proposed by Bthfan in 2014 in WikiProject Sports: use occupation (P106) [SQID]association football manager (Q628099) (or related subclass), of (P642) as qualifier to state the club + start time (P580) and end time (P582)
  2. the "Carlo Ancelotti" method (Q174614) (Jose Mourinho has the same): use employer (P108) [SQID] → the club or the team, position held (P39) [SQID] as qualifier to state the function (association football manager (Q628099) or related subclass) + start time (P580) [SQID] and end time (P582) [SQID]

I think the 2nd method is not perfectly adapted for national football team duties (France national football team (Q47774) is not the employer (P108) [SQID], French Football Federation (Q244750) is), so I may prefer the 1st... but occupation (P106) [SQID] does not seem to me the appropriate property to describe the main steps of a career (we use position held (P39) [SQID] for this, I guess...). What do you think about it ? --H4stings (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In your example, the claim is already made via head coach (P286) in France national football team (Q47774) (note it should have dates as well). It is enough on its own, we don't have to make reciprocating claims for everything. Danrok (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to display a historical view of the whole career for any coach (in Wikipedia infoboxes) - not just the current job, so head coach (P286) in France national football team (Q47774) is not sufficient for me.
I thought about it and a third way to describe a coach career could be the following: use member of sports team (P54) [SQID] → the club or the team (as for players), position held (P39) [SQID] as qualifier to state the function (association football manager (Q628099) or related subclass) even if it is not yet allowed + start time (P580) [SQID] and end time (P582) [SQID] as qualifier. --H4stings (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@H4stings: If you need to use this to create a table of teams the person has coached in a Wikipedia template, then it seems to me that there are grounds for creating a specific property for this, i.e. head coach of. Danrok (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@Danrok: oh ! OK... you think member of sports team (P54) [SQID] is a too much different concept ? --H4stings (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
@H4stings: Many coaches are former players, so if you were to use member of sports team (P54) for coaches, then how would we separate teams the person has played for/coached for, in infoboxes? Danrok (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
With position held (P39) [SQID] as a qualifier, I thought. To be true I've never asked for a property creation, I don't know how it works and how much it is complicated (or not). H4stings (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Finally, I've just proposed a property creation : Wikidata:Property proposal/head coach of. --H4stings (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

at this point, 5 different solutions have been exposed:

  1. occupation (P106) [SQID]association football manager (Q628099) (or related subclass) / of (P642) as qualifier: supported by Bthfan (in 2014)
  2. employer (P108) [SQID] → the club/team / has role (P2868) [SQID] as qualifier: supported by Casper Tinan
  3. member of sports team (P54) [SQID] → the club/team, has role (P2868) [SQID] as qualifier: seems supported by Thryduulf
  4. position held (P39) [SQID]association football manager (Q628099), of (P642) as qualifier: supported by Pigsonthewing
  5. new dedicated property : supported by Danrok

And me... I prefer 5 or 3, and I think 1 and 2 are not the best property for what I want. Any new opinion would be helpful. --H4stings (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There is other solutions :
The last solution is generic to any class and is a construction to denote that any instance of the class has the statement(s).author  TomT0m / talk page 16:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Medical condition interwiki links[edit]

User:Andreasmperu has not yet responded to my question on his talk page about why he reverted a few changes to interlanguage links to medical conditions, so I'm asking here to find out whether there's a good page or process for sorting things like this out.

Trying to get the right articles linked is difficult, because different Wikipedias take different approaches to articles. For example, the article w:en:Borderline personality disorder (also known as "Emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type") is mostly about ICD-10 F60.31, but mentions the other two types and the parent class. There is no separate article about the "parent" class of "Emotionally unstable personality disorder", which is ICD-10 F60.3. w:en:Emotionally unstable personality disorder redirects to the most well-known subtype.

But at the German Wikipedia, there are separate articles for the parent class (w:de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung, F60.3) and the subtypes (e.g., w:de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung, F60.31).

Can this be resolved with a some-to-many link, or can the English redirect for the parent class link to the German article for the parent class, or is there a better way of handling this? And, perhaps more importantly, which page is the best place for me to ask questions like this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is just another version of the "Bonnie and Clyde problem" aka Phabricator T54564. Databases like ICD-10 are notorious for this because they list differences in concepts at a more specific level than Wikipedia, which tends to bundle concepts. Jane023 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Let me just add what needs to be done: w:en:Borderline personality disorder needs to be linked to w:de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung, because the latter is the only article at the German Wikipedia that deals with this subject. Currently this German article is excluded from all links to sister articles in other languages. I fixed the problem three times since September 2015. But each time User:Andreasmperu reverted - and without giving a reason or discussing something. On my talk page talk page she left commands and threats to block me.
User:Andreasmperu has several times before reverted correct EN-DE links that I had installed. When I followed her invitation to discuss things on her talk page, she again only uttered commands and threats. In one case she only left the correction in peace when another editor from the German Wikipedia repeated my correction: see her talk page.
Where are such problems resolved in Wikidata? --Saidmann (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Start by thinking first about the entities that are represented in Wikidata. What's a proper name for them? How do they relate to other entities? Then you can ask yourself which article on an individual Wikipedia best represents that class. It's possible to create a nearly empty article like "borderline personality disorder: borderline type" and add a link to it on the Wikidata item. Afterwards you can change the nearly empty article into a redirect. Unfortunately you can't add the link when it's a redirect page. Ontology first, links second.ChristianKl (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry this was not the problem. Three times, the problem had been fixed fine and without any adverse effects, but User:Andreasmperu reverted without properly considering the case. That was the problem. --Saidmann (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I looked at your edits. It seems to me like you tried to merge manually by deleting items from one concept to add them to the other instead of using the merge tool at the beginning. Then Andreasmperu revert the edit and now you merged the items. Merging seems to be an improvement about the previous status. Or do I misread the situation? ChristianKl (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I had to delete the wrong item first and then add the correct one. That was exactly what the pop-up window had instructed me to do. And it worked fine. The German article was at once linked to all its sister articles of other languages. And no damage was done anywhere. --Saidmann (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

For this example, would it be effective for me to do this:

  1. Turn w:en:Emotionally unstable personality disorder (currently a redirect) into a one-sentence stub.
  2. Add an interlanguage link to [[de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung]].
  3. Wait until a bot (are they still running?) picks up the link and fixes Wikidata.
  4. Turn the page back into a redirect.

Would that work, or would it break when I performed Step #4?

(ping) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Saidmann: You should not delete a valid sitelink unless you are moving it into another item. Unfortunately, every time you tried to fix borderline personality disorder (Q208166) (like in here, you left de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung without a Wikidata item. That was the reason for my warnings. I also asked you to read the article and compare it to the statements, specially the identifiers, in borderline personality disorder: borderline type (Q18710618), so you can realise that there is a match with de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung and not with de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung.
@WhatamIdoing: Effectively, only dewiki has two different articles: de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung (F60.3) and de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung or better yet "emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung des Borderline-Typs"/borderline personality disorder, borderline type (F60.31). As the parent article, borderline personality disorder (Q208166) contains most sitelinks, whereas the subclass borderline personality disorder: borderline type (Q18710618) only contained a sitelink to dewiki. I have checked a lot of articles linked to borderline personality disorder (Q208166) and they deal about F60.3 and not about F60.31 (so, all the statements are alright then). For instance, the Spanish version is a feature article and only mentions F60.31 as a variant of F60.3, but it does not develop any further than that. Finally, I do not understand your proposal about enwiki: like the other articles in borderline personality disorder (Q208166), en:Borderline personality disorder deals about F60.3 and not about F60.31 (which is only mentioned in this section), so there is no need to any fix whatsoever . Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 17:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@User:Andreasmperu, sorry you are utterly mistaken: en:Borderline personality disorder and all sister articles of all lanhuages deal almost exclusively with F60.31 - and not with the parent class F60.3. The parent class is unimportant in all these articles and is only mentioned in passing. Therefore we need to link en:Borderline personality disorder to de:Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörung. Or in other words, the DE-article needs to be taken up into the family of all other language articles. --Saidmann (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
PS. Also please note that the DSM categories do not have a split corresponding to F60.30 vs. F60.31. DSM has one category for both, as stated in de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung: "Das DSM-5 unterscheidet nicht zwischen diesen beiden Unterformen." And DSM ususally is the diagnostic tool for the disease. That is why all articles are in the DSM alias F60.31 family. Only the DE-article has been excluded due to a misunderstanding. Please put it back into the family. --Saidmann (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Andreasmperu, I think that the problem is that most of the infoboxes of the "sister articles" has a misleading ICD-10 number. The article content at enwiki, at least, is about the "borderline type", and the "impulsivity type" just gets a brief explanation. (That is, I read the article exactly the opposite from you: it is all about F60.31 and, in the section you link, it briefly mentions that F60.3 and F60.30 also exist.) The more fundamental problem is that the German Wikipedia community seems to write about psychiatric issues by following the ICD-10 classification, and the English Wikipedia prefers to follow the DSM, and the resulting list of conditions and names do not match.
I do not understand the rule you wrote, "You should not delete a valid sitelink unless you are moving it into another item." What if there is no other item to move it to and it is not the best sitelink to have in that item? In that situation, this rule amounts to "first come, first served" for sitelinks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The DSM is the diagnostic tool used in the US by psychiatrists. It's not the usual tool that the average clinician in the world uses. ICD is the international standard. The DSM is an effort by the American Psychiatrist Association that doesn't have any international authority for setting standards. Even the official billing in the US orients itself at ICD codes (DSM codes get translated into ICD codes). The American Psychologists Association says: "The ICD is the global clinical and research standard for both physical and mental health conditions. [...] As a World Health Assembly member state, the United States is required by treaty to use the ICD [...] What's more, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requires the use of ICD diagnostic codes rather than DSM codes."
Do you know how psychiatrists bill patients they diagnose with DSM's Borderline personality disorder? Are you sure that they bill them with F60.31 and therefore the article in the English Wikipedia states the wrong ICD code in it's infobox? If that's the case why don't you edit the English article?
Furthermore what the English Wikipedia has to say is completely irrelevant to how articles of the German Wikipedia are linked to Wikidata items. :::Imagine that an electronic health record program has a "Show me the Wikipedia article for this condition button." By law in the US and also the rest of the world the electronic health record will sore ICD codes and not DSM codes. If you remove the links from the actual German page for F60.3, people might not find the correct article. ChristianKl (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, we have to check the classification codes, if problems arise. But we do not link codes but articles. Even if a code label is not the most appropriate one, that does not stop us from correctly linking the articles. We are not bots - we do read meanings. --Saidmann (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Christian, I've talked to multiple medical professionals from European countries, and I've yet to meet a psychiatrist or other mental health professional that does not consider the DSM to be the first and most important source. The ICD system is required for getting paid (see, e.g., all the parts of the APA webpage that you didn't quote). The ICD system is not required for practicing medicine. Personally, I think that the ICD system is a great approach for Wikipedia articles, even though it's not the approach taken at the English Wikipedia right now.
I agree with Saidman: we should be linking articles, not infobox numbers. The goal is to get the German Wikipedia articles paired with the matching articles at the other Wikipedias, so that readers who look for articles in other languages will go to articles on the same topics. We have not yet completely achieved this goal (despite your efforts with the one new redirect). When you are at w:en:Borderline personality disorder, and you click the link to the German Wikipedia, you should not end up at w:de:Emotional instabile Persönlichkeitsstörung. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
We aren't linking English articles to German articles. That's not the way Wikidata is designed. We are linking articles to concepts. If you want to link English articles to German articles there are interwiki links that can fulfill that purpose. We have authorities that define what a medical illness is. The give
If Wikidata doesn't give someone who asks for the article that described the illness with ICD code X the relevant article it fails at it's job at providing linked data.
I think you are underrating the importance of electronic medical records and the interoperability of Wikidata with them. It might not be central today, but as time goes on, I think interoperability is vital. With a lot of electronic medical records it will get easy for a countries to publish statistics about the incidence of illnesses. Statistics that Wikipedia might integrate via infoboxes. If you a German article isn't linked with it's correct ICD code, it won't correctly show data like this. The fact that the English wikipedia doesn't focus on ICD codes should in no way imply that a German Wikipedia article doesn't have a right to be linked to the correct ICD code and be able to draw data like this, when it exists in the future. ChristianKl (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
So, then, looking at borderline personality disorder, are you suggesting that everything in that record is wrong except the ICD-10 code and the link to the German Wikipedia, including the name of the record? According to the authoritative source, ICD-10 F60.3 is not called "borderline personality disorder". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Ontology 101: Names are not the concepts they represent. The WHO page you link to doesn't that that F60.3 is not "borderline personality disorder". On the other hand plenty of people write that DSM's "borderline personality disorder" is equivalent to ICD-10 F60.3. As far as I access it's standard to bill people diagnosed with "borderline personality disorder" with ICD-10 F60.3. A computer that's told that a patient has DSM's "borderline personality disorder" is going to put down that the patient has ICD-10 F60.3 because of HIPPA and because that's the official conversion. You could also simply look at the sourcing of this entry. It refers to http://disease-ontology.org/term/DOID:10930 and that ontology clearly states that "borderline personality disorder" is ICD-10 F60.3. ChristianKl (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The links are still dysfunctional. When do we get working links? Also, when will the threat to ban me be taken away? The next dysfunctional EN-DE link is already waiting to be fixed. But my hands are tied. User:Andreasmperu has threatened to block me as soon as I do another correction. This is a situation I find hard to hit the right words for. --Saidmann (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Saidmann word to the wise - you are not the only case of German biting people trying to get work done; let German wikipedia be their own island; who cares about block threats - a block on German is a badge of honor; you need to find a friendly German admin (if there are any) to deal with their un-collaborative editors. Slowking4 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I need a qualifier[edit]

Hello.

Nea Salamis Famagusta (Q6165489) (a sports club with football and volleyball team) had its headquarters in Famagusta untill 1974. After 1974 the football team had its headquarters in Larnaka and the volleyball team in Limassol. How can I show in headquarters location (P159) that the Larnaca (Q171882) is for the football team and Limassol (Q185632) is for the volleyball team? Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I would add two "preffered rank" statements
P159:Larnaca/applies to part (P518):Football/start date:1974
P159:Limassol/P518:Volleyboll/start date:1974
And having a third "normal rank" statement for the old data:
P159:Famagusta/end date:1974
-- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Innocent bystander Thanks! Can you check it now? Xaris333 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I would create two items for the two parts linked with has part (P527) and part of (P361). author  TomT0m / talk page 10:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
As TomT0m says above. I have also in other places heard objections against directly linking the "part" in such qualifiers (that we rather should describe the part than linking it). P518 is then probably more for items that should not be split in this way. You should is such cases probably add "Football" instead of "Nea Salamis Famagusta FC" in the P518-qualifier. In this case there are already items about the "FC" and "VC"-teams and they have P159-statements of their own. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I would expect that even after 1974 there's an official headquarter where the club is registered with government authorities if it's indead still a club and not two clubs. ChristianKl (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Acting President[edit]

How can we say that someone is "acting" in a position because the full position holder has died or resigned, but he is not really considered a full-right position holder. For instance Alain Poher (Q12950) following the death of Georges Pompidou and acted as such until new elections were held.

One solution would be to use dedicated items like position held (P39)  acting governor (Q4676866), but I do not like that very much. First because it would require many ad hoc items, and second because it makes follows (P155)/followed by (P156) chains harder to follow. I would rather use position held (P39)  Governor of Alabama (Q558677) with a qualifier, but which one ? --Zolo (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

as:acting (Q4676846)? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
There's also "president elect" type situations as well, i.e. elected to the position, but not yet formally sworn in. Danrok (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should use "deprecated rank" for that. Some never take office.
--- Jura 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
For acting president, please see Property_talk:P39#Qualifier_as_.28P794.29_for_.22acting_governor.22.2C_.22military_governor.22
--- Jura 15:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I had forgotten about as (P794), that seems to make sense.
President elect may call a different solution,: when someone is acting president, there is no other president in office, and he should probably show up in a chronological list, as follows (P155), or as the de facto president at a given date. That is not the case for the president elect before she takes office. I don't think using the deprecated rank is the way to go though. If a president elect dies before taking office, the claim that she was president elect is still valid. -Zolo (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess it would be possible to have a position "president elect", but a statement that a president-elect who hasn't assumed office was actually president would be an incorrect one. We had gotten that wrong on Q78869 and should attempt to avoid this in the future. Obviously, "successful candidate" on the election item can still work out.
--- Jura 07:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Once the US presidential election results are known, we should have a statement: US President: X, start date: 20 January 2017. But if she is murdered before taking office, then the statement will need to be deprecated. If we want to say that she is President elect starting in November 2016, we would probably need something different, and perhaps a "president elect" item.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zolo (talk • contribs).
We could also have End Date January 2021, but the statement wouldn't be correct either. A list of president should only include actual presidents.
--- Jura 07:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorting items of a property[edit]

A long time ago, there was a discussion about to have the option to sort (changing the order) the items of a property in a wikidata page. Is this going to happen soon or later? Xaris333 (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is still on my list. The next step is writing a gadget to do this. Amir wants to work on that once he has finished a few other things. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), thanks! I will wait. Xaris333 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

---
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Could we also ask for a Gadget that sort the claims within one property? For example population (P1082) who have timestamps, but not always in an order that makes sense. See Q2193230#P1082 for an example. If the latest is on the top or in the bottom is of less importance, as long as there is some kind of order for the eye. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that is indeed also a problem. I would do that as the second step after we are all ok with the ordering of statements. But depending on how much work it is we might also just do it in one go but I can't judge that right now. I'll need to find out. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of contributor (Q20204892) at Christian Marmonnier (Q2387108) seems horribly convoluted way, property needed[edit]

It has been mentioned previously, though not progressed, that we need to have something like a property "contributed to" that mirrors contributor (P767). Something like this could be used to put on an author's wikidata page the biographical dictionaries, encyclopaedias, journals, ... to which they contributed. This then could be used in a structured sense at the other sites, especially the Wikisources. While P767 has use from the compiled work side, it doesn't have sufficient fine detail for journals, eg. years of contribution become difficult. Similarly where someone's contributions predominantly display under a set of initials thinking Encyclopaedia Britannica and Dictionary of National Biography, those initials are meaningful. They have to be better than that conflicted example at Christian Marmonnier (Q2387108) which is structured data that is not sustainable though the only current presentable form.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The relationships of authors of encyclopedia can already by modeled via "author" of the encyplopedia item (and it shows in Resonator when you browse the page of the author). In the case towards which you linked there no source, so it's hard to see what might be the best way to describe the relationship. ChristianKl (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I would use author for the article that the person wrote, though not for the whole of the corpus. What I am trying to demonstrate is the relationship between the corpus and the writer from the writer's side. Plus for the late 19thC and early 20thC works they utilise acronyms/initials for the writers in the corpus, this wouldn't be represented at the article level. There are many biographical dictionaries that have the relationships that need to be demonstrated. Further, your plan only works where we have the article level data, this is not the case with many works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Use of P1629 for external IDs[edit]

When I proposed subject item of this property (P1629), I had in mind (as the English description makes clear) an "item corresponding exactly to the concept represented by the property". For example, for ORCID (P496), the value of P1629 is ORCID (Q51044), which is an subclass of unique identifier (Q6545185). For brother (P7), it is brother (Q10861465).

However, some of our colleagues have interpreted P1629 more loosely leading to examples for some external IDs, like IMDb ID (P345) -> Internet Movie Database (Q37312).

(Others are using it as a qualifier, as on Gabriel Gouttard (Q19660075) and others).

Can somebody help with cleaning this up, and setting appropriate constraints, please? I suggest we make an equivalent item for each Property which is an external-ID.

Or are people content with the status quo? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Given name[edit]

If someone is "Per Olof Bernhard Wahlberg" do I add "Per" and "Olof" and "Bernhard" as given name? or just "Per"? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Add them all, with the first one as preferred value. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Why couldn't all those statements have the same rank (either preferred, or normal)? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I guess the friends of "Per Olof Bernhard Wahlberg" did not call him "Per Olof Bernhard" on a daily basis. But you also have to be aware of that the first is not always the one who is used daily. The example-name sound very Swedish to me and we have here no preference to always let the most used name stay first. It could be both "Bernhard" and the combination "Per Olof". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jura1:? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I came across this approach using ranks and another using qualifiers. There were also some using deprecated rank. Personally, I haven't quite finished adding the "first" given name to items, so I haven't developed strong preference except that I don't think deprecated rank should be used.
    --- Jura 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No deprecated ranks is probably only for sourced, but still wrong claims. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Allowed value as property[edit]

Is there a reason why "Allowed value" is currently no property and the constraints of the allowed values get often hardcoded in the discussion page? 14:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)ChristianKl (talk)

Professor is not an occupation[edit]

Hoi, there is an inherent problem with the notion that a professor is an occupation. It differs per country what is meant by a professor. It makes more sense to indicate that a professor is employed by a given university and when it must be, it can be indicated that a person hold the office of professor. In this way it is explicity correct for any and all countries and cultures. The occupation would then be whatever the person studied for or alternatively teaches. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Here, a person can be "professor" in hir English description of his occupation while the Swedish says something else. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem is both language-specific and culture-specific. "Professor" is very very ambiguous as a term itself and should probably never be used anywhere. A "professors name and title in Sweden" is probably an "position held (P39)" while "professor (chief of a research institute, assigned by the national government") is probably an occupation while "professor (salary-level in Sweden)" is more of a title. A person who have the title "Professor" in English but not in Swedish in Sweden, is probably a "University teacher with a Doctor degree" in many other places. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
So in essence you agree. It should not be an occupation but at best a position. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
You have previously informed us of what you perceive to be a problem and very few others agreed with you then. What differs now? --Izno (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
There likely shouldn't be an item named "professor" but items named "professor (title)" and "university teacher". Maybe also a bunch of additional items. We might also have items like "American University Professor". ChristianKl (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The current use of "professor" is ambiguous at best. It is mostly wrong as we have it as most "professors" are not even acknowledged as such they are known as "employed by" "Whatever university". The tenure does often not coincide with the employment. There are many types of professor and they may exist within one employment.
The notion that people do not express arguments but opinions do not negate the power of an argument. I care little for opinions I care strongly about arguments. What argument is there to maintain professor as an occupation when it is agreed that it does not fit our need? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is not really a current use of "professor". No item is assignent the plain text string "professor". To actually solve the issue we would need to decide on what items there should be. How those items should be named. What they should use as subclasses? How should the relevant contraints of properties look like?
You could by adding items for all the kinds of professors you think there are. ChristianKl (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
When professor is not an occupation, I would remove them all as an occupation. I would not add nonsensical (who would understand them in what language) subclasses. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you should delete data that doesn't violate constraints for the occupation property. If you think there should be constraints that forbid professor from being used this way, I think you should define those constraints.
As far as subtypes of professor. "Professor with German paygrade W2" and "Professor with German paygrade W3" seem to me like different concepts. Both of them are again very different from "professor as a title". ChristianKl (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
What item are we talking about? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
it is obviously plural Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Halls of fame[edit]

I'm thinking of importing Basketball Hall of Fame inductees. People have been inducted as players/coaches/referees. See, for example, en:Template:1959 Basketball HOF. What qualifier would you suggest for indicating that? Currently I'm thinking about as (P794). --Edgars2007 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  • My first thought is for work (P1686). I don't think it will break any constraints but I'm not 100% on that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • According to talk page, it is only for creative works. These are/will be (probably) professions or something like that. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • has role (P2868)? Alternatively, create separate items (e.g. "Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame coaching award"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Suitable instance for pages like w:Icarius[edit]

Frequently I come across pages like w:Icarius at enwiki with two or more people described in detail. These seem to be fairly frequent to describe people in the field.

Some of these pages are linked to disambiguation items, others from list items, some as groups of people. This one is linked from a given name item.

As the content goes beyond a mere disambiguation page, what should we use to link them? List items might be the most suitable.

(Not important for this question, but, obviously, each entry in such lists should get an item of its own. Here Q608800 and Q1658054, maybe Q34041)
--- Jura 08:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have an adequate item for those pages yet. It should probably be something like 'Wikimedia items grouping page'. And it should follow the Bonnie and Clyde principles. --Melderick (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Looking at that page, personally I think it could be seen as a page that groups information from various Wikidata items. Couldn't that be said about most lists?
--- Jura 06:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a continuum between pure disambigs, lists, dislocated Wiktionary content and etymology in Wikipedia. Icarius could probably be treated as ´Lemek in the Bible where the P40 and P22-statements should be removed. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think items such as two people (Q15618652) are the right classes because the group itself only exists in Wikimedia (well as far as the Bible is saying about them ofc). I would expect a Wikipedia page about an instance of two people (Q15618652) to talk about what the group did together, what they share. I agree with Jura that Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) is probably the closest existing class. --Melderick (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

That page for w:Icarius is a disambiguation page. There is much more to be said about either Icarius but this page just stubs them both up and bundles them together. So this is not a list of two, but just a regular Wikipedia disambiguation page, which has part Icarios (Q1658054) and has part Icarius of Athens (Q608800) (so you can only link this item to other language WIkipedia disambiguation pages for Icarius). Jane023 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't see it as a disambiguation page and I don't think that much content is allowed on enwiki disambiguation pages.
--- Jura 17:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't see it as a quality article either. It is very stubby and discusses two concepts. It would be incorrect to choose the first one to link to the Q number so I think it should just be labelled a disambig. If it were me, I might improve the article about the first one, and then you could link it to the first item, but in my opinion they both are too shoddy to warrant an interwikilink right now. Jane023 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a major concern for many many articles about Greek mythology both in en.wiki and it.wiki (the template on en.wiki is en:Template:Greek myth index: 203 results on Petscan; unfortunately there isn't anything similar on it.wiki): I agree about using instance of (P31)  Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) and I want to report that in the past I saw instance of (P31)  set index (Q15623926) was used very often for items like these (118 results on Petscan for en.wiki, 50 results on Petscan for it.wiki, 130 results merging them). Finally, in my opinion the best solution is working in the native Wikipedias splitting these artificial lists into stubs and turning them into regular disambiguation pages. --Epìdosis 18:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course. We haven't yet attracted anyone willing to go fix these articles. Maybe they are all playing Pokemon Go. It doesn't matter as long as you believe it will happen one day. I have been around long enough to see improvements happen in various areas and I have no reason to believe it won't happen in this corner of the Wikiverse. Meanwhile, all of Greek mythology can be modelled to your heart's content here on Wikidata because we have tons of items about artworks that can link to them. Maybe once that is done it may interest people to write about them. Jane023 (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jane023: I agree and I can confirm that slow but significant improvements, here and on it.wiki about ancient Greece. In the meaning time we have to uniformate instance of (P31) for all this items: is it OK for instance of (P31)  Wikimedia list article (Q13406463)? --Epìdosis 18:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes I don't see the difference really. When I think of a list I think of 10 items or more and less than that I think it is more of a disambiguation page, but the concept is the same: it's a page that cannot be linked to a specific item and will probably always exist in some form or another. Jane023 (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Member of a federation[edit]

Hello.

1) I want to show that APOEL F.C. (Q131378) is a member of Cyprus Football Association (Q473248) since 1934. Is that the right way [1]?

2) How can I show in Cyprus Football Association (Q473248) the founding members?

Xaris333 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

For question 1 use member of (P463):
For question 2 use founder (P112): and then the same for the other founders. See Q458#P112 for an example. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thryduulf Thanks very much!! Xaris333 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Maritime Museum Rotterdam[edit]

Q1920457 and Q2755458 are for maritime museum in Rotterdam that seems to have the same location and Commons category, but have separate articles on Dutch and French wikipedias and separate items. Can someone that speaks Dutch check if those should not be merged? --Jarekt (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like they were merged (in real life, not on Wikidata) in 2014. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments and Wikidata[edit]

Hi all,

I am taking care of importing Italian WLM data into Wikidata. I've already read this, this, this, and this (with related links), and now I want to actually import some data (both from past lists and from a "new" database) as a first test. I've a few questions though.

  1. Since the Italian WLM IDs are currently created manually, what kind of "source" do you recommend to use for the statements? (cf. this)
  2. Although I'm doing my best to map the monuments to existing Wikidata items, there might be cases where no matches can be found. What happens if an item is created and then discovered to be already existing afterwards? Is there a way to add and use owl:sameAs links (or something similar)?
  3. What to do with monuments that are too "specific" (e.g. the arcade of a building, a single house from Pompeii, etc.)? Could they have their own Q number and then be linked to their related monument via e.g. a part of (P361) relation? Anything else than this, although probably more correct, would be more complex. I don't actually expect a huge number of such cases, still it would be good to have a shared policy.
  4. Do you think there should be any mandatory fields like the heritage status (cf. Wikidata:WikiProject WLM/How to map WLM data example#Step 1: What is implicitly known about the data?) ?

In order to get started with a few examples, I would just use the QuickStatements tool directly to add new claims to existing Wikidata items. But as for the creation of new items, is it still ok to insert them via QuickStatements? I think this could be a good way to get some quick feedback on them, since they would appear immediately on Wikidata. Maybe some "WLM Italy" (or similar) user to only insert WLM-related data could help "control" this process? Nvitucci (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've numbered your questions or ease of reference. Regarding question 2, items can be merged, though of course all reasonable steps should be taken to avoid this situation. Regarding question 3, yes, use part of (P361). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • (4) If you create (or update) items for Italian monuments, you might be able to create statements for most of the constraints on Property talk:P2186. These aren't compulsory, but if you have the information, please add it.
(1) You could make an item for "file received from WM Italia" and add this with imported from (P143).
If you hesitate creating items with QuickStatements (Q20084080), you might want to create only a few and then ask people from the Wikiproject to review.
--- Jura 06:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In the meanwhile I have updated an example item and I have a couple questions:

  1. Although there is an Italian label it is shown as having "no label": what do you recommend to do? To assign an English label with the same text as the Italian one?
  2. I sourced the claims with Wiki Loves Monuments Italia since I have imported such data from past WLM lists. Do you agree?
  3. Since some information about location was already present (imported from the Italian Wikipedia), now there are two references on the same claims. What do you recommend here? Should claims be added only if there is no existing information, or is having multiple references actually good because it gives more support to the claims?
  4. My main concern is about the usage of heritage status: this property is recommended when Property:P2186 is used, but I am not sure about the value to assign since the item is not necessarily present in any Italian list of monuments (e.g. it could be an interesting "palazzo" or small church). I'm using a general "cultural property" item, but I'm not sure what to do. Is there any constraint here? Is Property:P31 preferable, or maybe no property at all unless the item is listed somewhere?

--- Nvitucci (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll add that User:Jura1 correctly replaced the Commons Category with a more specific one, but the one that was added before was taken directly from WLM (and can be found on the Monument API too). Therefore, when importing from WLM, it might make sense to check whether there is a more specific Commons Category before inserting the listed one; how to do it? --- Nvitucci (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #218[edit]

name of items about wikimedia project pages[edit]

after a merge in Wikipedia:VisualEditor a new alias was introduced, related to wikisource project. This made me think about the main title.

I kinda agree that this "explanation pages" about VE or similar concept, both technical or community-oriented (such as such as definition of namespaces Q4994250, explanation of NPOV Q4656487, rules about usernames Q4664077 or whatever) should be linked on the same item, they show how a specific issue is declined on different platforms.

There are in any case some issues. Maybe they are not urgent, but I'd prefer to check.

The first one are the namespaces involved. Some of the linked pages are in the namespace that is called like the platform, which I guess is standardized as "ns:4" everywhere. Other pages are however "Ns:12" (help). So are we ok that we link different namespace in the same item? i mean are we ok on the long term with that, de facto we are obliged to do it in the present.

The second doubt I have is about the name. Some items use "Wikimedia:X", other ones "project:X" and other ones "Wikipedia:X" being Wikipedia the "main" project. Should we fix a standard for that? I think "Wikipedia:X" (or Wikisource:X", "Wikiquote:X") should be aliases but what is the best neutral title in your opinion? Q14204246 is called Wikimedia project page, so I guess that's why we'v been using both project and wikimedia as neutral terms for these items.

A reltad question was poesd in Talk:Q14204246#Namespaces_in_labels_and_aliases last year.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Project" is valid as an alias in all projects for ns:4, so my opinion is that "Project" is better than "Wikipedia/Wikisource/Wikimedia etc". Some projects have merged the Help: and Project:-namespaces, so cross-namespace-linking is probably necessary here. Not all projects have created a "Portal"-namespace, but that does not mean that they do not have such content. In such cases, you find the "portals" in Project-namespace, so also cross-namespace-links between Portal and Project is probably necessary. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

More useful way[edit]

What to do you prefer? Which is more useful?

< APOEL F.C. (Q131378) View with Reasonator See with SQID > participant of (P1344) [SQID] < 1934–35 Cypriot First Division (Q2706338) View with Reasonator See with SQID >
< APOEL F.C. (Q131378) View with Reasonator See with SQID > participant of (P1344) [SQID] < 1935–36 Cypriot First Division (Q2706388) View with Reasonator See with SQID >

etc

or

< APOEL F.C. (Q131378) View with Reasonator See with SQID > participant of (P1344) [SQID] < Cypriot First Division (Q155965) View with Reasonator See with SQID >
valid in period (P1264) [SQID] < 1934–35 Cypriot First Division (Q2706338) View with Reasonator See with SQID >
valid in period (P1264) [SQID] < 1935–36 Cypriot First Division (Q2706388) View with Reasonator See with SQID >

etc

Similar question about football grounds:

< Ermis Aradippou (Q378890) View with Reasonator See with SQID > home venue (P115) [SQID] < Ammochostos Stadium (Q582868) View with Reasonator See with SQID >
start time (P580) [SQID] < 2015 >
end time (P582) [SQID] < 2016 >

or

< Ermis Aradippou (Q378890) View with Reasonator See with SQID > home venue (P115) [SQID] < Ammochostos Stadium (Q582868) View with Reasonator See with SQID >
valid in period (P1264) [SQID] < 2015–16 Cypriot First Division (Q19906304) View with Reasonator See with SQID >

(But they may used the stadium for many periods).

Xaris333 (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't think participant of (P1344) should be used as a qualifier to participant of (P1344), so my first thought is that it should be used with the league item and qualified with just start time and end time. The link between the individual seasons items and teams need only be one way from the season to the team. Similarly for grounds, I think start time and end time are the best, but the home venue can be included on each season item if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Director of agency property?[edit]

Hello. I'm working on the update of Q392528 and I can't find a property to add the name of the head of the agency, which has the title of "director". The only "director" property I've found so far is that of a cinema/film director. That said, it's the first time I'm working with properties here so I apologize if this is a silly question. Regards, --— MarcoAurelio (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

manager/director (P1037)? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage links[edit]

Our interlanguage links for our resources are being deleted by Dexbot. The Wikidata announcement of 1 February 2016 stated "you will be able to manage the links between different language versions just in one place (on Wikidata) instead of having to do it in each article."

So our resource v:Anthropology has several interlanguage links such as it:Antropologia, where would these be here? I tried a search for anthropology and checked that Wikidata item. Neither our resource nor the Italian version are listed. Shouldn't these have been added here by an interproject bot before Dexbot started deleting them on Wikiversity? --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They seem to be at Q28598#sitelinks-wikiversity. If there is a problem with the bot, please contact its operator.
--- Jura 05:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

P2559 (Wikidata usage instructions)[edit]

Not sure where to post this so that somebody will actually do something about it; but it would be useful for a Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) statement, when it exists, to appear at the top of the statements about an item.

There's not a lot of point in having a disambiguation/usage hatnote if it is buried four screen-scrolls down. Jheald (talk) 04:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there is a phab ticket for it. To make sure that it's read, please include it in the description as well.
--- Jura 05:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lonely aliases[edit]

SELECT ?item ?lang {
  ?item skos:altLabel ?alias .
  BIND(LANG(?alias) AS ?lang) .
  # FILTER( ?lang = "my_language" ) .
  # FILTER( ?lang IN ( "my_language1", "my_language2" ) ) .
  MINUS {
    ?item rdfs:label ?label .
    BIND(LANG(?label) AS ?lang1) .
    FILTER(?lang1 = ?lang) .
  } .
} LIMIT 500

Try it!

This query returns items with aliases and no label in the same language (you can make filter it by your language(s)). I don't think it's likely to use a bot here as different actions may be required. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, it's not working, or I'm just (un)lucky to look up at those items, which are outdated (for SPARQL). For Latvian it returns, for example, organizer (P664), which has label in Latvian. --Edgars2007 (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Strange, I'm sure it did work at some point. Otherwise, how would I have found this, this or this?
Anyway, anyone who can see where is the mistake, so that we work on fixing these using SPARQL? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Need query advice[edit]

I am looking for a way to find pages like c:Category:David Mevius on Commons, that page links to wikidata Q101932, but Q101932 does not have Commons category (P373) link pointing back to c:Category:David Mevius. Is there a query tool I can use to detect pages where such reciprocity relation is broken? --Jarekt (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

With this query you will find Category page having Authority control template and linked to WD item not having Commons category (P373). If you add tracking category to Authority control template (for wikidata use) you can add it to query. But it is of course listing also commons cats linked to wd category items (possible to list only these without Commons category (P373)). --Jklamo (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Jklamo, thanks but petscan will probably not work because it relies on pages linked to wikidata through sitelinks and in the case above we can't assume that. In the example above I was looking for a way to find categories that have an interwiki link to Wikidata item but wikidata item has no "Commons category (P373)" back to the category. I also assume that the item has no sitelink to the commons category. Such items might be good candidates for P373 property. I was thinking something along the lines of SQL query of Iwlinks_table for commons categories transcluding {{Authority control}} template intersected with a query of wikidata pages that use P373 property. I think I can use https://quarry.wmflabs.org/ to get the first list, but I do not think I can use it to get the second one. The second list (items with P373 property), I can get through petscan or SPARQL, but there are 1.5M such items. I need to find page-item pairs in the first list which are not in the second list, but I am not sure if there is a tool that can work with SQL and SPARQL. --Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

President of the United States of America[edit]

Are we ever going to house more than the incumbent on the pages for "positions". Will they house all the presidents? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

They should not because there is no point in having items for each and every position.. EG Mayor of Whereeverville. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Huh? We already have "incumbent" for "for each and every position" where the positions is extant. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Resources with titles that are in the plural[edit]

We have many resources on Wikiversity that have titles in the plural, e.g., v:Minerals. The resource is more than a description of what a mineral is and contains many examples of minerals including classifications. If I were to create an item here entitled minerals, what sort of difficulties, if any, would such an item have or be for Wikidata? --Marshallsumter (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The question to ask is: is it the same subject as the singular. How an article is written is largely immaterial. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bonnie village and Clyde town[edit]

We have many articles on svwiki about a pair or a group of settlements. Falmark (Q644563) is such an example. Like "Bonnie and Clyde" it uses has part (P527) to link to the two "parts" here. (One of them have a sitelink to nlwiki.) The P31-statement in those items are today not consistent at all. I now came across Kopparmora (Q2723730) where the svwiki-article is a two-settlement article while the other articles are only about the larger settlement. I therefor intend to split this too. Anybody against a "Group of settlements"-item?

I also know some cases when the svwiki article is about both a settlement and an island. I have no solution for such cases, but you maybe have one? A "group of places"? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

👍Like the heading --Edgars2007 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It is an incorrect heading and should be "Bonnie & Clyde group of settlements and Clyde town" Like the 👍Like button though - I was looking for that earlier today! Jane023 (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I have created group of settlements (Q25964111) now (see it as a test this far) and have implemented it at Kopparmora (Q25964235) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated values & constraint violations[edit]

Oliver G. Pike (Q7087549) appears on Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2963 because the item has three values for GoodReads author ID (P2963). However, two of the three values are marked as "deprecated" (and have an end time, also), with only one being current. Is there a way to allow for this type of circumstance, in constraint violations? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Distinction of Protocol and Software[edit]

Hi, I've been updating and extending the Item Mumble (Q748932) for quite a while and a recurring problem is the distinction between the Protocol, that's spoken between the clients and a server and the Implementions of it. Would it be a good Idea to split this Item into one for the Protocol and one for each implementation of it? Would it be correct to see the Software "Mumble"(The Client developed by the Mumble's development team (Q25506107)), the Software "Plumble" (The Implementation for Android), etc. as Instances of the Protocol "Mumble"? -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is the protocol relevant to the rest of the world? What is gained from describing the instances? What maybe should be documented is some of the technical data at e.g. en:Mumble (software). --Izno (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Floors above ground[edit]

I think we have a problem with (good faith) edits like this; the definition of floors above ground (P1101) says "attic included"; the figure imported from the English Wikipedia infobox does not include attics. Also, do we mean all attics (the dusty ones used for storage), or just those which are in everyday use as living or working spaces? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

According English Wikipedia infobox floor_count = "Number of floors expressed as a numerical value", not mentioned if attic is included or excluded. --Jklamo (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The number of floors is culturally distinct. English cannot claim exclusivity. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
How about using different units have have a unit that includes attics and one that excludes them? ChristianKl (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
We have qualifiers like including (P1012), so no unit is required.
It becomes more complicated if/when you describe the address of something. I am currently at the first floor of our house in English but on the second floor in my own language. - Innocent bystander (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In British English, the ground floor is numbered zero. In American English, it is numbered one. However, this is not about floor numbering, but which to include - no-one is suggesting that ground floors are not included. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The issue at hand concerns the disparity between values used in the English Wikipedia and in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The differences may also come from the number of the highest floor, which not have to be the same as the number of floors. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No; it comes from the inclusion, or not, of attics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You did not respond to my proposal of P1012? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
It didn't seem to be addressed to me. I don't see how an automated edit would know what qualifier to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Portals, Schools, Departments, and parallel resources[edit]

At Wikiversity we can have many parallel resources focused on the same or very similar subject, e.g. v:Portal:Genetics and v:Genetics, how do I include both in genetics here? Or, should I create another item for genetics here? --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that the v:genetics page should link to genetics (Q7162) and v:portal:Genetics should link to an item for Portal:Genetics on all sites (en.wp doesn't have one). See for example how Mathematics is organised: Portal:Mathematics (Q7778173) links to w:Portal:Mathematics and v:Portal:Mathematics, mathematics (Q395) links to w:Mathematics and v:Mathematics. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Olympic Games[edit]

Hey folks :)

I am currently working with a bunch of people on a showcase for Wikidata and the query service. The idea is that we show how powerful and useful Wikidata is through the data we have about the Olympic Games. We'll do some nice queries and visualizations and so on. The data we have already seems to be pretty good for the past games. Is anyone already working on coordination around the 2016 games? It'd be totally awesome if we can push Wikidata as the place to go to for up-to-date open data about the Olympics. There is already Wikidata:WikiProject Olympics which could use a few more participants it seems.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Has anyone from your office approached the organisers, the IOC, for a collaboration? they might give us a data feed, or "press" accreditation to receive updates. We should also consider which language Wikipedia(s) we can work with to get data into infoboxes or other templates, in a speedy manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
No we have not yet. If anyone has contacts and you want us to we can though. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In these days, I'm trying to harvest info from infoboxes (at least, for these Games) and add some (external) IDs for athletes. --Edgars2007 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
In a case like this, I think an approach would come best from your office, or even the WMF, rather than individual volunteers. Once contact is established, then of course volunteers can continue the relationship. Chapters should equally contact their national bodies, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Does it make sense to use date of death property on living people's items?[edit]

Is is useful to indicate that a person is living? I am using date of death (P570) with no value for that (as in this example). But I haven't seen any other item having this, so I'm asking. --Gikü (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is the intended purpose. Some sort of "living" qualifier would be the better way forward, but I have yet to see use of any such qualifier. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
For immortals, that could work, otherwise no. To state when someone was alive, use P1317.
--- Jura 17:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I think currently if somebody does not have date of death, it's presumed this person is alive. Obviously not true for people born in 16th century (unless they are one of the Highlanders clan ;) but in this case we should use "unknown" date of death - which should say "we know this person is dead, but don't know when". I agree that "no value" more fit for immortals, adding "no value" to every living person in wikidata sounds IMHO less useful. --Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thank you! --Gikü (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

how to harvest properties from list of items[edit]

I have more questions about available tools. This one hopefully easy. If I have a list of items how do I harvest a single property from them. I was looking at this list and were trying to harvest Commons Creator page (P1472) for all of them. I worked with PetScan, but so far did not figured out if it can do it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

You could use SPARQL like SELECT ?item ?value { VALUES ?item { wd:Q1 wd:Q2 ... } . ?item wdt:P1472 ?value }. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary entries[edit]

I tried to enter a Wiktionary entry but failed. When indicating the "Other sites" is "wikt", without the quotes, the correct abbreviation to use for this wiki? --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not available yet, its structure requires some work. See Wikidata:Wiktionary. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about merging[edit]

Hi, Q23918662 is a Swedish person, and Q23918488 is a redirect with a misspelled name at svwiki to the same person. I assume that correct procedure is to remove the sitelink to the svwiki redirect page from Q23918488, and then merge the 2 items. Is this correct? Thank you, Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum: Yes, feel free to do so! It happened when Janee merged two articles on svwiki. Since they were about exactly the same topic, there is nothing to save here. If the article about Niklas Enebloms wife (or anything/body else) would have been merged into the article about him, they should not have been merged. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done, thank you Innocent bystander. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Caption for audio and video files[edit]

We currently have image legend (P2096) to give a caption to image files, but I can't find an equivalent property for audio or video? If there isn't one, should image legend (P2096) expanded to "media legend" or do we need new properties? I'm currently using it for the caption of audio at Ding Dong Bell (Q5278123). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the domain of image legend (P2096) seems to me the better option than creating new properties. --Pasleim (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I cannot see any problems with extending the range of this property. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Official website with broken link[edit]

Should an official website which no longer exits be kept on as a property of an item? See f.ex The A-Team movie where the official website no longer exists and the domain isn't even registered. I tried removing the property since it didn't seem to make any sense to keep it but it was re-added by a bot. TommyG (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, you were most likely not intentionally reverted. The website was re-added since it still can be found on enwp. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I turned it into deprecated rank now, with reason for deprecation (P2241):"Dead link" as qualifier. I do not know if this is a good way to solve it, but it is a start. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Better put an end date (maybe with "unknown value" for example.) It'll make clear that the site is no longer available. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you are probably right! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)