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 and merges can be made here.

IRC channel: #wikidata connect
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2015/05.


Q17403220 - Doctorate Honoris Clausa[edit]

Hello,

Would someone have the skill to clean items related to Honoris Clausa. There seems to be quite a mess between Q11415564, Q17403220 and Q209896. I tried to do so but do have trouble handling it. I think that they could be easily cleaned and merged but they are used in claims. So I do not want to change anything without knowing the impacts.

Thanks in advance. Thieol (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiNews links[edit]

Pirate Party Germany (Q13129) should be an item of it's own for the four wikinews articles, that are linked by main subject to this item? In this way we can only have one WikiNews-article about any subject, which is wrong anyways. Edoderoo (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The way Wikinews articles are currently handled is a mess. Wikinews articles are about events, but are getting linked to items about partly-associated entities and then treated both as items about the associated topic, and as items about the Wikinews article. Much of the contents of Special:WhatLinksHere/Q17633526 are just wrong. In my opinion, we need to rethink how Wikinews articles are handled in general, and then do some major repair work on the existing items and links. I don't think that any of these items should link to Wikinews article (Q17633526) or use language of work (or name) (P407), really. --Yair rand (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The way I treated them until now: a Wikinews article has it's own wikidata-entry, always. It is not linked to any of the other projects, to my idea. Then the language makes more sense, as all the listed languages do have a wikinews-article in that particular language. It now goes wrong where a Wikinews article is linked on a Wikidata entry of a person, a building, a city, etc. We indeed need to do (quite) some repair work, but I believe that 99% of the items are actually OK, but the 1% is causing quite some headache. Edoderoo (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
as an example: Jamaican Usain Bolt breaks world record 100m to 9.72 sec (Q19931054) is now taken out of Usain Bolt (Q1189) (see history for my edits). I see that the Polish language article is a news article on the same subject, but a different occasion, so I will create a new entry (Usain Bolt sets world record 200m (Q19931072)) for that as well. To my opinion, that is how we should treat Wikinews articles. Edoderoo (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The use of language of work (or name) (P407) in Wikinews items is wrong because it is not corresponding to the general way in WD. We don't add language of work (or name) (P407) to all others items when they are linked to a specific WP (we don't add language of work (or name) (P407): english to an item linked to WP:en). ::: An item about one Wikinews article or about an WP article if linked to english Wikinews or WP:en is ALWAYS in English. This is just a redundant information which is a useless maintenance work to maintain as all redundant informations. Snipre (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Right, that is about the smallest issue. What about the big issue, that a WikiNews article is linked on the WD-entry of it's main subject? Edoderoo (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: This is a structural problem. Acording to Wikinews structure, everything should be an item but this is not the case in WD. For example if there is a Wikinews article about the birth of a person, we should have an item about the birth of that person. But in the current structure of WD, birth data are added as statements. More we are performing some experiments with WD and more I thing Wikinews can't be included in the current WD. This is not the only issue we have with a database which is used to store data and to store links between projects. We have two different objects and the problem is we try to keep them together and something to create interactions inside the same system. Typical examples are the categories items. Snipre (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The articles you linked to are about events. As such, they should have instance of (P31) event (Q1190554), and they should be linked to articles on other wikis about the event. If there were a Wikipedia article on "Establishment of the German Pirate Party", it could be linked to the Wikinews articles you referred to earlier. These items can have normal relations with other items. For example, the item on Pirate Party Germany (Q13129) could link to the item about its establishment using subject of (P805) as a qualifier of inception (P571). --Yair rand (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: The problem is that WD doesn't store each event as an item. Just think about birth and death of people: most of data about these kind of events are stored as statements. According to Wikinews structure these should be items in order to create appropriated links. This is the problem of mixing data in a structured way with site-links which suppose that everything can be an item in order to create an unique link. Or we have to allow multiples links from the same site to an unique item, but in that case we create a phone book and not more a structured database. Snipre (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata has plenty of items on events. If you have an item regarding a relation between two topics or an topic and a time/location/etc, and that relation is primarily stored as a statement, use subject of (P805) as a qualifier to the statement to associate the other article. For example, if there was an item "birth of X", then you would add "subject of (P805): birth of X" as a qualifier to X's date of birth (P569). --Yair rand (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is not the fact that some events are represented by items. The problem is that for some events which are defined as statements we need to create empty or data redundant items just to be able to create a link to the Wikines article, the problem is in that mixture of models (sometimes event as item, sometimes event as statement). We have to choose between two models: a all-events-as-item model or we keep the statement for describing some events and we have to find a different way to link the statement directly to the site via a sitelink. Snipre (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Most of the connections can be linked by main subject (P921) out of the wikidata-entry, especially when the news is about persons. In case of events, like accidents, it might be that there is no related article, and there is nothing to be linked. To my idea, the good thing when using main subject (P921) is that the wikinews articles will show up when using Reasonator, without the link they will simply never show up. Edoderoo (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they show up if the items' topics were considered the article topics instead of the articles themselves, like we do with Wikipedia articles? They could even be linked with significant event (P793) in the otherwise statement-less cases. --Yair rand (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean in the way it was in Usain Bolt before I took the Wikinews articles out? Because you can then only link ONE Wikinews article on every Wikipedia-article. Where many politicians have multiple Wikinews articles about them. Major events (Tour de France, Olympic Games, etc) probably have more then one item too. In database language, there is a one-to-many relation, where it is now linked as a one-to-one relationship. Edoderoo (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not what I mean. I mean having a separate item for the event, with the Wikinews articles linked, but not treating it as an item for a Wikinews article, but rather as an item for the event that is the topic of the linked articles. There should not be a linked Wikipedia article unless Wikipedia also has an article specifically on the event. --Yair rand (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I start to believe that we need some clear examples, on how it's wrong, and how it's correct. Preferably with perma-links, else the items might change over time. I'm afraid that we're not all interpreting the terms in the same way (which might be due to not having all English as primary language, which is as well the case for me) and clear examples might bypass that problem. Edoderoo (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
First version, with the topics combined, which is currently the state of many items. This obviously have many problems, and I think we can all agree that it shouldn't be the standard.
Second version, with an item that has the Wikinews article itself as its topic. If I have understood correctly, this is the system supported by Edoderoo. Since it's being considered as a published piece of news, it has main subject (P921) linking to the other item.
Third version, with an item that has an event as its topic, with links to Wikinews articles that cover that particular event. As an ordinary event, it fits into the data model in the ordinary manner, and is linked to from the other item as shown. Should Wikipedia also have in article on the event (which is not true in the example given), then it would also have pages linked to that event's item. This is the system that I support.
--Yair rand (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the case there are one or multiple wikinews article about an event, lets say a sports final, it makes no sense to assign language of work (or name) (P407) to the item. Everyone, or even a stupid bot can detect the language(s) of the article(s) based on the wikilink(s). So if there is a link on Jamaican Usain Bolt breaks world record 100m to 9.72 sec (Q19931054) to de.wikinews we can safely assume that the language is German. We also do not assign language of work (or name) (P407) with value German (Q188) to Usain Bolt (Q1189) because there is a German article linked to the item.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I am actually in favour of the second hypotesis: it saves the links between WN versions, but we also can define what the article is about, and the item itself can be used as a qualifier or even as a source. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 16:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Sannita: Can you give an example of when such an item would be useful as a qualifier? --Yair rand (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: I'm sure the idea of the qualifier made sense when I wrote that, but I literally can't remember what I thought. So for the time being, you might want to scratch the qualifier part and keep just the source part. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 15:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
So, regardless of whether these items are to be treated as news pieces or events, are we in agreement that they shouldn't have language of work (or name) (P407) statements? If not, does anyone have arguments in favor of them? --Yair rand (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What about other properties for Wikinews article? As a creative work this is a news, so it can have publication (P577). Also when it is about some speech it can have author (P50) and performer (P175), and sometimes cast member (P161). --Infovarius (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for SI-unit properties[edit]

Progress on implementing numeric properties with units - such as length/distance, area, time and speed - is slow and only rarely appears on the weekly update. A number of properties are on hold due to this.

Would it be possible to allow properties, where an SI-unit exists. The description of the unit could include the SI-unit in use. Examples:

  • Height - the vertical length stated in m.
  • Area - stated in m2.
  • Speed - stated in m/s.

When in the future the units are here, a bot would be able to append them by property.

Off course this will annoy authors used to feet and °C to have to use m and K - and prefixed units (eg. km) are ruled out as well. But it's just for now.

Lua-modules will still be able to display the numbers as the language of the wiki in question might dictate.

Poul G (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I mean, what I think matters is that if people are willing to use a temporary solution, they must be ready and willing to do a mass conversion once units are implemented.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It does sound tempting given that we could easily loose another year or two waiting the for the first implementation of units. Conversion from the temporary solution should be quite easy.
The main issue I see is that the quantity datatype still needs improvement, see: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/05#population.2B-0. --- Jura 06:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not years but only a few months away from having unit support. In the end it is an editorial decision but please do keep in mind that anyone who uses this data will have to make significant adaptions again later. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 with Lydia Pintscher (WMDE). If you take the time to follow the work progress of the development team you can have a good estimation of what will happen in the next 2-4 months. Better waiting than doing partial job which will be a mess to handle later. We have already enough things to modify because initial data import or structure was not correct. Instead of forcing to be able to add some hundreds of values better prepare data in an external file and be ready to import all in once with a bot when the datatype is ready. Snipre (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I did check the developers ticket-list, as the number-property rarely surfaces in the weekly reports. And found a few with low activity and relatively few followers. Where should I have looked to see "few months" or "2-4 months"? Poul G (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Poul G: See here for the general problem of the datatype with unit. Currently the problem is about how the user can select the unit (Unit Selector widget) treated by this bug. A discussion is ongoing about this last problem and you can follow it using this bug which in the current sprint of the development work (see that). Snipre (talk) 22:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): What would the list of predefined supported units be? ("The available units are from a list of predefined supported units." [1]) I guess the base units, the derived units, and their prefixes must be supported, but what about composite units and non-SI units accepted for use with SI? Which other systems will be supported, and to what degree will values be expressed in those systems? The question is really whether the unit system implemented will attempt to avoid data loss, or if the easier solution is chosen. Seems like tracking datum is dropped, can you confirm that? Jeblad (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
My hunch is that everything will be stored in SI units with other units converted to on demand. This could prove problematic, however, if the non-SI unit is the source unit and is specified exactly, since unit conversion would then cause loss of precision.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That is a very good point. Sooner or later we also need units for non-convertible units. I have read some early 20th century article recently, and they tells me that this and that was X feet wide and Y feet high. Today, I do not know the length of those feets. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes we'll be supporting convertible and non-convertible units. As it currently looks you'll be able to say something is "12 ducks" ;-) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): So, there will be no limitations at all to what units are allowed? We'll be able to add things like height: 3 apples? --Yair rand (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
That's the current plan to be in line with what you can do elsewhere in Wikidata. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how to add something "safely"[edit]

I didn't have much time to look through the help pages, and I couldn't quickly see how best to do this; could someone else do it and leave a tutorial (or link to one) on how best to do it? I was afraid I'd break the metadata by introducing something with wrong formatting or wrong content if I just clicked the "Add reference".

Hilbert space, Q190056, can be linked to OCLC ARN 2072176. Could you please add it? Nyttend (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nyttend: I took a shot at it but apparently fail at such things since I could not get a link to show up that directed me to the appropriate location. Do you have a URL that would be associated with that number, where https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/$1 is the format of the url and $1 is the ID? It should be numerical only. You can add it yourself to Q190056 in similar fashion to what I just failed to do... (don't forget, this is a wiki, so trying things out yourself is okay).

Otherwise, we may not have the property to make the claim you are trying to make. --Izno (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't have a URL, unfortunately. When you're using OCLC Connexion Client and browse the LCSH authority file for "Hilbert space", it shows you a subject header for "Hilbert space", and the OCLC record number for this SH is 2072176. It's not the title of a work, so it doesn't have an OCLC number per se. This is precisely why I was hesitant — I didn't even know if we were attempting to link LCSH entries with other data, let alone how to do it if we should. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Two questions: Is the ID you're providing a unique, permanent ID, and, do you know if it can be derived from some other ID (OCLC or other closely related ID)? If yes and no respectively, it's probably a good candidate for WD:Property proposal/Authority control. --Izno (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
WD:WikiProject Authority control might be able to help too. --Izno (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Izno, I expect that it's permanent, because the only way to assign this LCSH a new number would be to delete the authority file and create a new one, and that would mess up every single linked OCLC record of every type, whether ordinary bibliographic entries or other things. However, I was proposing using the OCLC number just because it was conveniently available for the LCSH. Is it possible to link LC subject headings to other kinds of records for the same topic? Q190056 currently links to an NDL entry that looks like it might be comparable to the LC topical subject heading that's listed in the print edition of LCSH and the free online edition of LCSH. Is my request now clear? Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Your request was cleaer to begin with--I just don't have the domain knowledge. --Izno (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@Multichill, Kolja21: Maybe one of you can help. --Izno (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I've only been working in cataloging since January (I didn't have the chance to take a cataloging class in library school; they don't even offer it anymore!), so I'm not as confident on this kind of thing as I wish I were. Not to mention my near-total unfamiliarity with how Wikidata typically operates. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The LCSH can be looked up here. Hilbert space (Q190056): LCAuth identifier (P244) = sh85060803. P244 can be used for Library of Congress Name Authority File (Q18912790) and Library of Congress Subject Headings (Q1823134) (more infos by Gymel). --Kolja21 (talk) 04:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Huh? At Property talk:P244#LCSH I merely stated my observation that this property apparently is also used for LCSH numbers, contrary to the definition at the time of the proposal. Changing the description of P244 might be an easy resolution, however at en:Template_talk:Authority control#At the moment, it is used almost exclusively in biographical articles there are complaints that this extended usage breaks the Authority Control template at en:WP: They also use the P244 value to provide links to OCLC WorldCat and this appears to work for the "n"-valued ids of the LCNAF entries but not for the "s"-valued of LCSH. AFAIK OCLC has developed its own system of FAST headings (Faceted Application of Subject Terminology, cf. en:Faceted Application of Subject Terminology but for the Hilbert Space example (LCCN sh 85060803) the identifier would be http://id.worldcat.org/fast/956785 aka fst956785 (but this does not provide links to the resources related to that).
As for User:Nyttend's example "ARN 2072176": Keyword search for "2072176" yields mostly titles related to Hilbert Spaces in WorldCat, and searches for something with 060803 or 85060803 from the LCCN or 956785 from FAST result in nothing helpful. Also for subject headings there does not exist an interface like http://www.worldcat.org/identities for persons, organizations &c. So I tend to back the claim that "ARN 2072176" is or corresponds to some internal OCLC number for their copy of LCSH for the benefit of their members but there seems no way to research, verify or even utilize this from the outside, i.e. with the means provided by WorldCat.org. -- Gymel (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is authority record number 2072176, i.e. record #2072176 in Connexion contains the metadata that allows the LCSH "Hilbert space" to function in Connexion Client and (perhaps) to connect to everything else in OCLC; I don't know if the number is particularly relevant outside the internal Connexion servers. We'd have to find someone with access to Connexion Browser to know whether it's just something with this one client program or something broader, not to mention talking with someone with OCLC to learn if there's a way to match numbers and LCSH with freely accessible resources. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1980's-90's exercise shows on PBS or KVCR[edit]

Does anyone remember the 1980's-90's exercise shows on PBS or KVCR if so, do you remember the names?

Placeholder comment as I can't find the user who wrote this section. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: Special:Diff/216477778. Jared Preston (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles mixed with disambiguation pages or categories[edit]

Looking at Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations there are a lot of cases where disambiguation pages or categories are merged with articles. Often the property instance of (P31) for disambiguation page or category then gets deleted and everything looks fine. (But of cause it isn't: The different items are still mixed and the descriptions are mixed as well.) Why not block the merging for articles with disambiguation pages and categories? --Kolja21 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

More usually it's the case that a wiki is causing these changes. Two main ways this happens:
  • A wiki takes a disambiguation page and changes it to an actual topic page.
  • A wiki takes a topic page and changes it to a disambiguation page.
Some wikis do this I imagine without moving the pages in question, which Wikidata would otherwise catch. From what I recall, Wikidata probably doesn't catch all of the page moves because there's some lag on the Wikibase client script running, so that might be a 3rd way we're not catching it.

Otherwise, the 4th way is simply that they're extant problems from prior to using Wikidata. I would imagine we've caught most of those by now... In other words, there's nothing we can really do except let the constraints catch the offending items. --Izno (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes it is really an error where there are disambig pages mixed with some real articles. In some cases the article is a mix between a disambig and a stub. I´ve also found some of these.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Some may be leftovers before everyone has a SUL. If somebody without a SUL moved a page and created a disambiguation page on the former page, the sitelinks would stay the same and would be incorrect. You should compare the maintance category with the statements on Wikidata. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I see an attitude among some Wikipedians that "a not so good interwiki is better than no interwiki at all". That attitude in combination with the attitude that "interwiki should always be done through Wikidata nowdays", makes this a work of Sisyphus (Q102561). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
There are articles which are categorised as Disambiguation pages which correspond to real world topics which need wikidata items. A lot of the 'Surname' pages are this. In some languages the article just lists people with that surname, in other languages the article has an introductory sentence about the surname before the list. In my opinion these articles should be linked to a wikidata item which has statements 'instance of:wikimedia disambiguation page' and 'instance of:surname'. These items are then used as the targets of 'surname' statements. The alternative is to create separate items for the disambiguation articles and for the surname, where the item for the surname has no articles linked to it. this means we have twice the number of items to maintain and we have statements linking to items with no sitelinks. Extra maintenance and less usefulness. Filceolaire (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
This is how I've done it and seen it done (two items). It doesn't make sense to me to have an item that is a disambiguation page and a surname when it's easy for the disambiguation item to link to the surname item. Plus, there are some names where the surname is actually a separate article from the disambiguation (list) page. The two-item method allows for consistency and correct separation of data. Hazmat2 (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Aliases in other-language scripts[edit]

Hello. I'm new to Wikidata but have been trying to clean up some of the items for Korean music artists, primarily by adding descriptions. However, I've also been cleaning up the English- and Korean-language "also known as" fields by, for instance, removing the names of individual members from group entries, which apparently were pulled in by accident. My question comes from the following: I've also removed names in the alias field of English entries in Korean and Chinese scripts (they are already present in those languages' entries, so there was no actual loss of information). Additionally, I've removed copious amounts of alternative romanizations from these fields, as these aren't usually included in the subjects' Wikipedia entries unless they are especially prominent or confusing. I figured all these things had been pulled in automatically when information was pulled into Wikidata. However, I belatedly checked the article histories and found that the info had been added manually by another user. I left a message for that user but it appears he/she is only active here sporadically. I've read the guideline for aliases but found no help. Could anyone provide clarification about inclusion of non-roman scripts and alternate romanizations as aliases in the English-language Wikidata? Thank you so much for any help! Shinyang-i (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: Aliases are intended to help users find an item; if the user types one of those other romanisations, they will only find the item if it is present as an alias, Please restore those you have removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing:Can you provide a guideline as to how many romanizations should be included? There can be sometimes 30 or 40 for a single name. It will go far, far beyond what were originally present. Also, are aliases providing the same functionality as redirects do on Wikipedia? Shinyang-i (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i: See Help:Aliases. --Yair rand (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Yair rand: Already did that, as stated above. Can anyone actually engage with me in a discussion of this topic instead of admonishing and pointing? This is worse than Wikipedia for biting the newbies. Shinyang-i (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems to get high rather quickly here. There is no limit to the number of alias an item can have, and this is not a priority to set one. Aliases are just here to help, nothing more. I see no reason to set a limit. Do you have only aesthetics concerns ? If it ain't broken, don't fix it. TomT0m (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course I don't have "aesthetics concerns", I was merely trying to get information; I don't know why you're endowing me with emotional motivations on this. I have zero problem with including dozens of romanizations. But I was told to restore what I'd removed, yet what I'd removed was only a drop in the bucket of what apparently was supposed to be there, and thus the answer wasn't exactly clear. The documentation on Wikidata is pretty sparse and there aren't a lot of historic discussions to refer to. Navigation is a little more challenging than at Wikipedia. A lot of the existing items are not "clean" at the moment, and there are no such things as "Good Articles" to look to for best practices. It's impossible to know if changes previously made to items are "correct" or not without asking. Thus, "stupid questions" like mine are inevitable and I think should be treated with a tad more respect than what I feel I've received. I'm pretty blunt myself but this has been a bit much. Not very motivating. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it clear now ? TomT0m (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. Further questions:
  • The "fuzzy" spelling issue mentioned in the Aliases documentation - is it live yet and what kind of "fuzzy" spelling does it recognize? For instance, will "nyeo" and "nyuh" in romanization of Korean be seen as "fuzzy" spellings?
  • Should other-language-script names be included, and if so, how many languages? Those from all Wikipedias? Previously only Korean and Chinese were added. How about hanja (subject's name in Korean Chinese-origin characters, which may or may not be the same as their name in Chinese)? Thai? Russian? Etc.
  • Clarify capitalization - in my experiences on Wikipedia, capitalization of a single word makes no difference but it does for all-caps words; i.e. btb = Btb but btb or Btb =/= BTB. Is that correct?
  • "Alias" implies it's an alias for the item in question, but on Wikipedia redirects are often used to send a user who types in the name of a non-notable band member to the band's article. So should non-notable band member names be included in aliases of the band, as well? (Aliases documentation indicates "no", yet they were there and I was told to restore what I'd deleted...)
  • If a person's entry name is their full name but they are often called by just one of those names, does the single name need to be added as an alias? Example: Item name: John Smith. Is "John" needed as an alias? Again, it seems like "no", but I was told to restore what'd I'd removed, and I removed a lot of those...
These are the major issues I've run into so far. I'm sure more will pop up. Thank you for your time. Shinyang-i (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not major issues from my point of view, and has a very low impact. So my answer will be I don't really care. And most of Wikidatans as well. That's why you can't find a lot of documentation on this, and as far as I can tell it's a good thing :) So my advice : don't take too much time on this and just focus on something else. TomT0m (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Except maybe for the band members one : it should be clear that an item about a band must not be used to speak on one of its member who should have its own item. So if there is no item for the band member, remove the alias so that this do not happens. On the other hand if the band member item exists and that it is far better know than the name of the band, it could help to find the band item. TomT0m (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i: From what I can see, the aliases are there to make it easier to find the items. There is no sematic statements based on them. There is no way to add a source to them and there is nothing who tells that they always have to be correctly spelled. I would prefer to say that there is no definite truth about what the aliases should include, except that they should include things that will help the users and the search-engins to find the correct item. My opinion is that you should make a judgement of your own, and not try to identify an exact policy for every issue. Of course, there are aliases that should not be there. If you search for Antichrist, you should normally not be linked to Barack Obama. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Thank you for the informative and polite answer, and for not telling me no one cares about my contributions. It's much appreciated. As it is, I will just do what I think makes sense and not interact with other uses. First time I screw up and get yelled at, I'll be gone. Thanks again. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Shinyang-i: :) I'm a bit late to the discussion, so I hope you're still around.
I think you have a very good question. The impression I get from both Help:Aliases and the prominence of aliases in the interface is that aliases are only designed for commonly used things which could be considered alternative labels, yet the impression I get from quite a few users is that aliases are just a place to put as many hints for the search as you feel like adding. Those are actually two separate concepts, so it's not a surprise to me that people are disagreeing.
I think that if aliases are not actually important, are just hints for the search and are not really of interest to humans, they should be made a lot less prominent in the interface. When the aliases take up so much space on the screen (above all of the interesting data even!), a direct consequence of too many aliases is that it makes the site harder to use: They get in the way of viewing and editing statements and they make editing labels slower.
If aliases are supposed to be alternate labels which are of interest to humans, then there is the question of how people can add data which is only for helping the search.
Either way, Help:Aliases does not seem to match how many people are currently using the field, which is a problem, because it will lead to more scenarios like this one.
- Nikki (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shinyang-i. Welcome to Wikidata. You mention you have been looking at Korean and English language labels and aliases so you are familiar with the labels in other languages. If you have a Babel Box on your home page then that can help control which other language labels you see. See User_language for details. Feel free to drop by my page if you have questions you don't feel comfortable about asking here. Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Time to ping @Denny: here :) And also some of the major writer of Help:aliases, @Thepwnco, Sven Manguard, Bene*: (from the numbers on this history, who else ? ) to check community consensus. TomT0m (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i: Sorry for the not so great experience you had so far with the project. I hope it will get better. I usually have a really fun time on Wikidata. Thanks, TomT0m for pinging me in. Aliases were designed to support the search, this is also the reason why they don't have qualifiers and references, e.g. "Pope Francis" would be a good alias for "Francis" and the other way around, when referring to the current pope. It is merely meant as a technicality to help people find entities easier. They should not be considered to be a proper part of the knowledge base, but more meta-data about the topic that helps with searching.

Ideally search should get better over time with new software features. Romanizations or other transliterations, fuzzy, soundex-like search terms, etc. should automatically be created and enrich the search for entities, as well as some of the monolingual properties, like ISO codes, etc., translations, etc. But we are unfortunately not there yet. This would make great volunteer contributions, or summer of code-like projects!

I would, in general, try to use common sense in the absence of data. The more prominent a topic, the more care we should give to make sure it is found. The UI is indeed a bit misleading (also, I never been entirely happy with the "also known as" wording). But also less prominent topics deserve to be treated with the Aliases that will help surfacing them. Basically what I do is when I use Wikidata, and something does not show up with the search term I have used when I expected it, I go and add it. It would be great if we could actually gather the data and see where we are missing out: what are the search terms that do not deliver even though we could? @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, any chance of getting that data? This would allow us to make further rational decisions on the usage of aliases. --Denny (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

These are all very interesting points, @Denny, Filceolaire, Nikki:. I appreciate the response. I'm starting to run into situations like this one: Jung Eun-ji - and that's not even a quarter of the common romanizations for that name ('Chung' and 'Cheong' are also common spellings for that surname, plus the word orders all need to be reversed for Western style). It's hard to pick out which ones users are most likely to search, so I've been adding tons of them. But then, as already noted, you get a page dominated by alternative spellings, completely dwarfing the "good stuff". I'm interested in the efforts to program in fuzzy spellings and such. I can attest that whatever Google does, it works well for Korean. Even Ebay is pretty good with alternative romanizations. I'd be willing to help with such a project however I can. Meanwhile, I may lay off on adding a gazillion alternate spellings and stick with a few basics, plus actual aliases, and focus more on adding descriptions and such, since it seems maybe there will be some evolution in intent and functionality of the alias area. Thanks for all the feedback. This is all a lot of food for thought. :)
Mmmm while I'm here, can I ask another little question? I'm working with singer-related items, and it appears that the way to list band members on a band's item is to use the "has part" property. The reciprocal of that is "part of", but there is also a "member of" property. Which of the latter two is appropriate for a band member's item to designate their membership in a band, for consistency's sake? If anyone knows... :) Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at Wikidata:WikiProject Music, it seems like the suggestions there are member of (P463) for bands and part of (P361) for things like "Person 1 & Person 2" duos. - Nikki (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sweet kate
DSGalaktos
Sjoerddebruin
AmaryllisGardener
Kosboot
Shingyang-i
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Music

Very helpful link, @Nikki:. Thank you! Shinyang-i (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Aliases is partly of work around for cross language searching, partly for fuzzy searching. I've always wondered if the search result should include other languages, or whether that would clutter the search result to much. It could be done by raking close languages higher than the more distant, transliterated strings even less, and then duplicates should be removed. We could then reuse both labels and aliases from other languages to broaden the search, thereby increasing the chance for a useful result. Jeblad (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Shinyang-i:, an answer to one unanswered question: all capitalization matters (btb=/=Btb), so you should write John, but musician. --Infovarius (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Items for Wikisource[edit]

We have Q19063070 which is a document about a chap called James Green, but he also has an item at Q6134904. Can we not just have one item for him, and link all these together in the sitelinks? If this is not possible, then what should the label and description be for the Wikisource item? MSGJ (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

These items should be/could be linked together, but not necessarily by the site-project links. If one items is about a person, and another about an encyclopeadic article about that person, it's not the same thing, but they can be linked. This is pretty much analoge to the problems I brought up earlier this week on Wikinews. A news article about a person is not the same as that person, and should have different Q-items in Wikidata that are linked. Edoderoo (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Vlsergey: thanks for your detailed answer. I have a few comments / suggestions:
  • Is this "convention" documented anywhere? It is official?
  • I have relabelled a few of these by hand. Perhaps you could look at my recent contributions and tell me if they look okay?
  • I think it is the responsibility of those creating / importing items to do so correctly, and to make sure they have a proper label and description. The current arrangement is polluting the database making it hard to find other items.
  • Would it be a good task for a bot to relabel all of these items accordingly?
MSGJ (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@MSGJ: 1. this convention is not documented yet, it's only implemented in some JavaScript code used by ruwiki and ruwikisource. We are expecting the formal process of discussion to start after arbitrary access is enabled on ruwiki & ruwikisource, because we will need bot work to handle ~300k links like above. 2. Actually, title of item in Wikidata doesn't matter a lot. Current labels looks good (and correct according to convntions above), but the most important point that we have prefix ("DNB00" or "DNB12"). Thus noone will made a mistake linking those items instead of original topics items. 3. Well, may be. But my bot is blocked :-) I assume one need to make those conventions "official", find some consensus among all users of Wikidata, may be open some RFC, after this bot can do his work. -- VlSergey (gab) 11:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why:

and not:

which seems more precise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

    • @Pigsonthewing: the reason behind this is simplification for bot, LUA and template processing. When we need article from, for example, DNB00, we looking for statement with described by source (P1343) value of DNB00 and extract link to article from stated in (P248). Second reason if unification of described by source (P1343) values, both for encyclopedias present in wikisource and ones that doesn't: all of those will have encyclopedias Q-item in described by source (P1343) field. Also, "precise" is not an argument here. Precise item is specified as qualifier:
  • To make this easy to handle, a solution that doesn't require the use of qualifiers would be helpful.
    The problem with the second approach with P|1343 is that it mixes DNB with any other resource that happens to be at Wikisource.
    Both approaches don't make it easy to find DNB merely because it has the disadavantage of being at WikiSource. --- Jura 06:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vlsergey:, why stated in (P248) and not subject of (P805)? --Infovarius (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Infovarius: inteesting idea, may be subject of (P805) is better for this. But, sadly, i have no technical or organization ability to change this. To do this one need to run bot, replace all links in existing articles, and fix gadget code after. Would you mind to discuss it and do such bot work (mat be except gadget work)? -- VlSergey (gab) 05:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

interwiki text[edit]

How can I access a specific interwiki link? Lets say I want to get the link to de.wiki for Q1524 (Athens). If I could get just a text string I would be happy aswell. Thnx in advance -- Spiros790 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I was looking for that as well. Module:Wikidata doesn't seem to offer it yet. --- Jura 06:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


how about that?

  • {{#invoke:Wikidata|getLabel|entity=Q1524|lang=it}} --> Atene
  • {{#invoke:Wikidata|getLabel|entity=Q1524|lang=de}} --> Athen
  • {{#invoke:Wikidata|getLabel|entity=Q1524|lang=el}} --> Αθήνα

thats not an interwiki text string but it should be OK in most cases.

-- Spiros790 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If that was reliable, we could do away with half of Wikidata ;) --- Jura 06:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I need a way to get the name of an entity, in english, german, etc. It doesnt have to be a reliable link or something :) That would be cool though. I m creating infoboxes that use wikidata properties for el.wiki, currently tryin to retrieve the name of a city in its mother tongue. -- Spiros790 (talk) 07:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a property "native name". I think it's meant for this, but I'm not sure if it's frequently used. An alternative would be "official name". --- Jura 07:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
a "native name" property is exactly what Ι am looking for. I don’t think Ι have ever seen it though. Thnx for your input :) -- Spiros790 (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
it exists for people name in native language (P1559)… but for places, I'm not sure… would be useful though… :)
besides, there would be a question of name at a certain period - Athens is not problematic, but Istanbul/Constantinople, etc. - would require date qualifier :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an item for the old norse name of Constantinopel: Q2008228 (Q2008228) Face-smile.svg
I have used official name (P1448) to Q13106534 (Q13106534), but I do not exactly know what is official with it, so I am not so sure about my choise in that case. And what the "native" name is, is difficult to say, since we do not really know who is "native" here. It depends on your pov. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think "official" is correct. The native name of "Athens" is "Αθήνα". Thats how Greeks call it. No pov here... -- Spiros790 (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The pov-problem is what you consider as "native language" in this case. People have lived there for thousands of years, but we do not know which language they spoke and definitly not what they called the place. We know that today Swedish-speaking people uses the name "Hälla" and Sapmi-speaking people uses the name "Hïella". Some people say that a Germanic people have lived there, other Sapmi while some think a third group of Creole people lived there. My pov is that it was a Uralic people which later changed ethnicity and language into Swedish. Consider what would happen if you discovered that Sokrates used the name "Atina" for your "Αθήνα", since the place originally was Turkish and not Greek. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Socrates called it ΑΘΗΝΑΙ and sure as hell it wasnt "Turkish" back then, thats just retarded. Anyway what I was lookin for was a way to get the name its current inhabitants use... i.e. your statement is irrelevant anyways.-- Spiros790 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, we should call "native" the name given to it by its current inhabitants. I call Istanbul "Constantinople", because I am Greek and my ancestors used to live there. But we should use "Istanbul" for a "native name" property here. -- Spiros790 (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

what I meant was that the native name can change through time… ;) — see
as for Istanbul (Q406), its current native name woul be İstanbul (in turkish) , and not Istanbul ;)
native meaning as the natives call/write it is different from official - but probably official name (P1448) would be a good approximation, since the intent was to get the "in the language of the country" writing, more than the "legal pov" :)
the nickname given by natives would certainly not be what you want to get here, (like Paname for Paris (Q90)) --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
yes it can change through time. But what we should care about is now. Please stick to the points that are being made, not to irrelevant spelling errors like "İstanbul". Official name is wrong. Most of them are like "Municipality of X". Nicknames are also wrong for obvious reasons.
btw I am well aware about the history of Istanbul/Constantinople, my family used to live there until the 30ies... Some of them are still alive and well today.
yep the native name of this city would be İstanbul
thnx for your feedback :) -- Spiros790 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


another approach would be to record all native names through history and rank=best the one used today. For İstanbul: Βυζάντιον --> Κωνσταντινούπολη --> İstanbul. I don’t think that this is useful info though. There are also serious POV problems -- Spiros790 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, would anyone have an answer to the initial question? --- Jura 07:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

yep that would be intresting, we are not here to discuss history... -- Spiros790 (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Property for 1st line of a poem ? (incipit)[edit]

Hello,

Is there a property to enter the 1st line (verse) of a poem… many poems have no title, and are recognized using their 1st line.

I remember a discussion about it, a year ago, but I cannot find it any more… so, is there a property to add it, or do I just input it in title (P1476) ?

Thanks for your help, there are already thousands of poems (from various wikisources) to complete on wikidata --Hsarrazin (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea! No, I am, not aware of any property for that. IF you propose it, ping me and I will support! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: done : here - hope I did it right, feel free to add info if you think I forgot some - thanks :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Elections[edit]

I have set up Wikidata:WikiProject Elections, feel free to tell us your ideas on the talk page. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Please, long time request : when will we be able to add redirection pages to links ?[edit]

In wikisource, we often use disambiguation/redirection pages to store data from the work, and redirected pages for editions…

When there are more than one edition, the page is disambiguation, but as long as there is only 1 edition, we use a plain redirection, to spare the reader a clic :)

Now, to link with wikidata work and edition items, we have a problem…

This is problematic, since, when other editions will be added, it will be necessary to change wikidata fr link, just because of the fact that the redirection is not kept… 

I have seen many of them on wp, but I think those were created before the pages became redirections… and on ws, we have an automatic change of link when that happens…) :/

so, now, my question stands : when will we be able to add redirection pages to links ? pretty pretty pretty PLLLLEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASEEEEEEE --Hsarrazin (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

+1. @Denny, Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):, there was Wikidata:Requests for comment/A need for a resolution regarding article moves and redirects without a comment from developers... --Infovarius (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand that this is an issue and that a lot of people care about it. I however also think it is not in the best interest of Wikidata itself to make this happen. (Sitelinks are a big part of defining what an item is about for example.) It is an issue because of the fuzzy concept linking on the other projects. Now that we're rolling out arbitrary access I want to see what people do with that to cater to that usecase. (There was already talking about this for example for Commons.) After some experimentation I want to reevaluate the next steps. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: technically you can add link to the redirect page. You need to create usual page (or change existing redirect to usual page), link it with wikidata entity and replace original page with redirect one. -- VlSergey (gab) 12:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks Vlsergey, but no... on ws, we can't, please read above... --Hsarrazin (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: still i don't get the problem. Currently Q19963040 (Q19963040) is stated as edition of Q19965950 (Q19965950). Q19965950 (Q19965950) points to disambiguation and Q19963040 (Q19963040) to specified element. Where do you want to insert additional element in terms of Wikidata? Do you want Q19963040 (Q19963040) be edition of something and something to be edition of Q19965950 (Q19965950), and something to point to redirect? Please, modify Wikidata elements accordingly and I will try to help create link to redirect in way you want. -- VlSergey (gab) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
hello Vlsergey, - because of the homonymic pb, I made and error on the item number, sorry, because it surely did not help to understand.
but Q19963540 (Q19963540) link points to the edition page, thus preventing the edition item Q20011072 (Q20011072) to be linked correctly…
thanks for your help :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
PS : of course, these items are only examples, we have hundreds of those… :(
as a matter of fact, I've seen thousands of items where a link to a page showed the preview message "this page has been kept as a marker... to a potential future article" or something like that… the redirect works, but the link in wikidata stays, in these cases… how can it be obtained - is it something to do with __STATICREDIRECT__ that I don't know as a magic word ? or is it done with a template (on the target page, of course) ? :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Hsarrazin: i did the disable-redirect-magic-trick and created following sitelinks:
Q19963540 (Q19963540) => https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Soir_-_%C2%AB_Les_flots_du_L%C3%A9th%C3%A9_coulent_sur_l%E2%80%99ardeur_vaine_%C2%BB
Q20011072 (Q20011072) => https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/%C3%89vocations_(Vivien)/Soir
is this the way you want it to be? -- VlSergey (gab) 05:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: Stop redirecting in WS and done. If something is a Work, then redirecting to Edition is misleading in the first place. So, a misleading technique shall influence how Wikidata works? I vote: Oppose. Eldizzino (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

so, Eldizzino, do you tell me that redirections should not be used on wiki projects, because wikidata can't handle them ? do you really think it's a solution ? - that's exactly what you say…
from top of your very important experience of working on wiki projects ?
you "vote" on a project you know nothing about ? okayyyyyyy…
judging from your work on en:wp, you really have a very cutting way of handling problems… 
maybe you should learn better before voting on the Chat, about a problem you don't even understand… 
do you really think that a redirection from a character to the book or film he appears in would be misleading ? it's much more different than a work from an edition, which even experienced librarians sometimes have problems to see… ; but tens of thousands of items are build this way on wp projects… all of them should then be removed… tell that to all wp projects... LOL...
in my case, like in those, a redirection page is a way of putting a marker for a future page, that already has an item on wikidata, but cannot be created yet, for technical reasons on sister project… it is very useful to many people and projects… the technical difficulty is not sufficient reason for just stopping it.
the only thing that could explain/excuse your general behaviour would be that you're not even 18 - if you're more than that… please learn to read, and ask question before giving advices like that — seems more like an order to me, though — :/ --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Link LA (Q17609506)[edit]

Can you help? Thank you, Conny (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

  • But it's up to the local communities if they want to keep the template. --Stryn (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Stryn only 1 project uses it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I know many pages (including templates) that doesn't exist on other wikis... --Stryn (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It has no tranclusions. It will be deleted from the wiki soon. WE can only wait. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It's still up to the local community whether they want to keep the template for historical purposes or not. We on Wikidata can't make the decision. --Stryn (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2015[edit]

How do we take care about the songs which will be performed today in the finals and how do we denote that a song didn't make it to the finals even though it competed in the semi finals? --Jobu0101 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see we don't. See Q15953308 for example. Last years Belgian entry. Song didn't make it to the final, but that isn't denoted in the item. Mbch331 (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think all the tables which exist in the Wikipedias concerning the ESC should be creatable using only Wikidata. So we need appropriate properties. In particular Wikidata should know which songs competed and how they performed. --Jobu0101 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jobu0101: What extra properties do you think we need? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I added the points for the final. For the semi final results, I think we should create sepearte items for each show. --Pasleim (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think, also the songs should be linked somehow. But it's already a good basis what Pasleim did. --Jobu0101 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (Q15215081) has some good stuff. My suggestions:
  • We should have a separate item for each of the two semi-finals.
  • The 'participant' statements should link to songs, not to singers. Remember that the winning songwriters get invited on stage too at the end (at least they used to - Didn't see them this year).
  • Statements re singers/songwriters etc. for each song should go on the item for the song.
  • "country', 'ranking' and 'number of points/goals scored' are the appropriate qualifiers for the participants.
  • we can add a winner (P1346) statement. The semifinals can each have 10 winners (i.e. songs that went through to the finals).
This does raise a question about the item for the final. Can this also act as an item for the whole contest or do we need a separate item for that?
OK? Filceolaire (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Filceolaire: I totally agree on your points. Concerning your last question I think the correct way is to have a separate item for the final since the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (Q15215081) is the union of all three shows and not only the final. Once we have worked out the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 (Q15215081) it can serve as show case for the other 59 ESC events. --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Filceolaire, some comments from me:
  • The primary statement for participant should not the performing artist as this is officially a song contest. Having the song as the primary statement seem like a good option.
  • While the songwriter and composer is permanent, the performer is interchangeable so it should be mentioned as a qualifier. At one point, Sweden's entries had three different interpreters, two in the national finals and another in the ESC. And of course, anyone can come along and record a song later on, so having to resolve who performed it a Eurovision could become unnecessarily complicated.
Väsk (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Väsk: @Jobu0101: @Filceolaire:, Regarding what Väsk pointed out, there's some comparison to this conversation and the one at the property proposal for Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#Recording_or_performance_of. There needs to be a distinction between a song "work" (the composition, with songwriter/composer) and the "recording or performance," by the recording or performing artist. Sweet kate (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I know there have been discussions about "works" and "editions" related to books, one edition for every version of a book (paperback, e-book, Wikisource-online-version) and one main item about the work itself, related to the text. Maybe something like that have to be used here? Each "edition" can be related to different singers, or even different performances, when necessary. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Entering information on new item not in Wikipedia yet[edit]

I created a new item. Where do I enter text?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaze2453 (talk • contribs) at 20:35, 23 May 2015‎ (UTC).

You'll have to create a new article on any of the other Wikimedia projects, this is also the place where you can enter text. Wikidata is meant to connect the several articles on the other projects, this is done with the links on the right hand side. Edoderoo (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
As you can imagine, it is a wee bit more complicated.. Text, sure. Statements are very much information that can be added to Wikidata. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Edoderoo: You misanderstand Wikidata, Wikidata is here to build a database of structure datas. This interwiki feature is a small part of this project :) Wikidata is here to build statements like  who will be readable from any language, and also by machines. What text is obviously not :) TomT0m (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

About official name (P1448)[edit]

Talking with @Ahoerstemeier: there is a doubt about this property. I have added Italian version here but but for Ahoerstemeier isn't correct because English description of the property say «official name of the subject in its official language». So how to use this property? --ValterVB (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

ValterVB, this property is for the official name as defined in some official source (usually a law or parliamentary resolution). Some countries and cities will actually define official names in more than one language. That is why the "official name of 'Thailand' is something in Thai which I cannot read because I don't understand Thai. Unofficial translations should go in the Label or in the aliases. If you don't have a source to confirm that 'Regno di Thailandia' is officially endorsed by the government then it should be deleted.
There is some discussion of 'transliteration' properties or a 'translation' property which could be used as qualifiers to 'official name' but these properties have not yet been approved. Filceolaire (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
ราชอาณาจักรไทย translates to "Kingdom of Thailand". The translation of this term, which then would be in all possible languages, should not use the mono-lingual datatype, but the still planned multilingual datatype, that's why that property is still pending. By the way, there's also quite a big overlap between official name (P1448) and native label (P1705), in most cases the official name would be the same as the native label. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
In en.wiki I read: "Thailand officially the Kingdom of Thailand", in it.wiki I read: "La Thailàndia ufficialmente Regno di Thailandia", in de.wiki I read "Thailand offiziell Königreich Thailand", in fr.wiki I read "La Thaïlande, en forme longue le Royaume de Thaïlande", so every language have an official name that is also used in infobox. --ValterVB (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Since Thailand has embassies in many countries, and those embassies will communicate "officially" with the governments of those countries in their respective languages about matters concerning the Kingdom of Thailand, I presume there exist official names for the item in many, many more languages than the official ones "of" the item. So what to do with "official" names of the item in "unofficial" languages? -- Gymel (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
These are official translations but not official names. Snipre (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ratified date, effective date[edit]

Using the example of Continental Association (Q4231641), the date created is October 20, 1774, the date ratified is the same, and the effective/operative date is December 1, 1774. For the first, I'd use inception (P571) but I can't seem to find any for the other two. Before I go requesting new properties, I'd like to assume that something is already in existence. What have others used? Thanks, Hazmat2 (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Instead of creating new properties, I would use significant event (P793), i.e.
Thanks for the info. Second question then: how would one go about calling these qualifier statements in an infobox? w:Template:Infobox document is the specific one I'm using at the moment. Thanks, Hazmat2 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Look at your module module:wikidata in your WP (ex.: fr:Module:Wikidata). If someone develops the code you should be able to filter results according to some qualifiers or some values. You should perhaps code a little in lua to obtain the data you want. Look if someone already develops module:infobox. The main of advantage of significant event (P793) is the possibility to group all data (time, location, person,...) in one statment. Snipre (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator (Q1735558)[edit]

Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator (Q1735558) seems to be mixed up, can somebody split it? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Testing Flow?[edit]

Hey folks :)

I'm currently at the MediaWiki hackathon in Lyon and talking to lots of people about Wikidata and other projects. One of the people I talked to is Danny, the product manager of Flow. There have been discussions here about using Flow on Wikidata here before. At that time Danny said he wants his team to finish a few more things before Wikidata could use it. Those blockers have now been resolved and I think it'd be great if we can help another project with our testing and feedback to make the discussion landscape around Wikimedia better. Danny set up a test page for you to go wild on and there is a page with the current features/benefits of Flow. If you like it and are willing to give it a try I think item talk pages are actually a nice test case since not too much is happening there and the discussions that do happen are not too complex. And depending on how that goes we can look at other spaces. What do you think? If you want to give feedback on the state of Flow you can use Wikidata talk:Flow.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Does Flow handle templates in section headings better? (anchors, etc.) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Flow doesn't support section headings yet, but you may be able to use separate threads to do what you want. Can you describe an example of what you'd like to do? DannyH (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I use a template in the section above this one, would that be possible in the thread name? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a very bad impression of FLOW on the English Wikipedia. It is substandard and is being aggressively pushed through by WMF. Typical discussions of FLOW tend to go around the fact that it is not compatible with the current markup and can not be turned on in the opt-out regime.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I think it would be damaging to take a position only wrt. the WMF. I don't get the incompatibilities in the markup you refer to because it seems based on the Visual editor libraries. Do you mean it would not be possible for old talkpages to be converted to Flow ? The only valid question is imho : can it fits our discussion patterns scheme ? I think it fits like a charm and we get better notifications and answers tracking. TomT0m (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
My understanding is that converting is not possible. The old talk pages will be archived, and the new pages will use these Facebook-style discussion tools.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question What about talkpages that are used partly for documentation, like Talk:Q5 or Property Talk:P31 ? @DannyH (WMF): TomT0m (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think Flow is ready for Wikidata yet, and I've been following Flow since the beginning. Mainly per TomT0m.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: The question might not be is Flow ready for Wikidata but Is Wikidata ready for flow. Using talkpages for documentation seems to me like a workaround. TomT0m (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
So, addressing the broader issue of where to put property/item documentation then, where are we going to put it? Note that the English Wikipedia keeps a lot of internal information like WikiProject affiliations on article talk pages too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a question for @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): :) What are precisely the issues on enwiki, so that we know what we're talking about ? TomT0m (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the issue of "documentation" on talk pages is much smaller on item pages. That's why I suggested them to start. The stuff that is on property talk pages can hopefully soon be moved to a large extend to statements on the property page. The students' project to improve constraints reports is making good progress and can hopefully go live soon in a first version. That being said the Flow developers have this on their radar and I have seen a version that offers a space for this as well. If I understood Danny correctly this will be out in the next week or two. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if we should try to make editing items closer to the way talk pages are edited (with or without flow). It seems that some are at ease filling up talk pages, but seem to have difficulties adding statements to items. --- Jura 06:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose at least until phab:T93883 is resolved. Wikidata is not a test site. --Ricordisamoa 10:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The first point is fair. I'll bring this up with the Flow team. The second point: Please remember how much Wikidata has and still does depend on other projects being willing to try something new. Without projects being willing to test what we have we would not have gotten anywhere. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I like experimenting — and I've never archived any of my talk pages in the hope for a single pre-Flow archive! But I also recall the disappointing way the WMF has been treating the mediawiki.org community. --Ricordisamoa 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ricordisamoa: I guess the questio now is How do we get out of this situation … We should get out of this chrisis by the up. TomT0m (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I'm sorry, I don't catch the metaphor. --Ricordisamoa 14:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ricordisamoa: I just think being upset with the foundation is a poison in the long term. This can't last forever :) TomT0m (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the WMF should realize at some point that managing a company and managing a non-profit where content is created by unpaid volunteers are two very much different things. So far they did not demonstrate this understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Of course, and personally nobody will force me to do anything on any Wikimedia site … But we must realize a community of that size is not really easy to move. They try hard to make the experience better for everyone, but their always will be unhappy people on the moment (and there always has been). The risk is that things stays forever what they are, I understand that they want to speed up things a little sometimes, at the risk of making mistakes. Here I see nothing wrong in Lydia asking here first, why would we still refuse if they try to do better this time ? TomT0m (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have participated in the FLOW discussions in the English Wikipedia from the very beginning. The modality was always that the decision has been already taken, and adding FLOW to all talk pages is imminent, they just want to negotiate when and how it is going to happen. This is not the way of talking to the volunteer community.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Well, community has always took care (mostly) of the content, and the foundation has always worked (mostly) to make hardware and software available … The discussion system has always been a pain (inconsistend indentations, bullet points, {{Outdent}}, no notifications of answer … Now that we have something better we will refuse it because we're grumpy ? Come on … That's exactly the reason the foundation had to act like this Face-smile.svg. TomT0m (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If I understand you right, TomT0m, the french community accepted all software changes powered by WMF without discussion? --Succu (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Succu: Sorry what ? I don't think you understand right. I don't speak for the french community. And yes, they're grumpy as well, this is what I'm telling. TomT0m (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I personally find that the existing system is way more convenient than Facebook (and it has been made for discussion of serious business, for which Facebook is absolutely not suitable). But this is just my opinion and an opinion of several hundreds more long-time contrbutors. I do not oppose FLOW as such (though I am convinced it is hopeless), I strongly oppose the fact that the decision to install FLOW (and, for a reminder, there is no opt-out, unlike VE) was taken without any consultation with the community. If FLOW becomes the only way to communicate, I will leave the WMF projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: You would leave projects who aims to allow everybody to access knowledge freely for …_a change in the discussion system ? Yeah, that's as good as facebook, for sure :) Personnaly I just miss something to go to the parent comment in one click. What do you miss, seriously ? TomT0m (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I miss a minimal standard of respect for the editing community. In 2008? 9? I participated heavily at the (now closed) Strategy Wiki, where we had to use Liquid Threads. This is not an experience I really want to repeat. And, yes, I have already heard that FLOW is conceptually different from Liquid Threads. I know. I have Facebook experience as well. Yes, I will leave because of the change of the discussion software.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Please be more specific, what don't you like exactly ? As it it is not useful output … Imagine you're a flow developper, how would you answer to this ? I get they can't really answer something like this. TomT0m (talk)
It does not work like this. I tried to discuss this with Oliver when he was still in charge; indeed he wanted specific bugs and promised to fix them. No, I am opposed to the whole concept. I believe it is not fixable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Why not try to give feedback on the test page ? Feedback wanted and the page has already changed since yesterday thanks to our feedback … I don't know how it worked, but this is how it works now :) TomT0m (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, Wikidata is probably the single worst Wikimedia site for testing a new discussion system. Unlike the more public-facing projects, a lot of users who come here to post a question are already active Wikimedia contributors, who are frequently already confused by the parts of the interface that are different here by necessity, and had to come here to change something that impacts a page on their home project. My recommendation is that Wikidata should be the last project, or among the last projects, to have Flow enabled. This community is probably one of the more flexible communities when it comes to testing new software, and we can handle early tests here in a lot of areas, but the discussion system is not one of these areas. --Yair rand (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose You don't fix things that aren't broken. The problems that Flow is supposed to fix aren't really even prevalent here, just on enwiki. I haven't seen an unsigned post by a newbie in a while, and people seem to communicate fine using the current system. Wikidata's not ready for Flow, and Flow is not ready for Wikidata. If Flow is used here, we need to fix several bugs stated above before the implementation. Wikidata, being only two years old, has enough problems to be sorted out, don't add Flow to that. --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody -- I'm sorry it took me so long to come back here to respond to all the questions and ideas; I was coming back home from the hackathon. I've read everything here, and on Wikidata talk:Flow and Flow tests. There's a lot to respond to all at once, so I'm going to do my best, and we'll see how it goes.

First, the general concerns about English WP, bad faith, aggressive rollout plans, Facebook and fixing things that aren't broken. I believe that wikitext talk pages are not the best tools for the job we expect them to do. I've been working on wikis since 2005 -- mostly on Wikia, where I started Muppet Wiki, fell in love with collaborative writing, and then allowed it to take over my life. I know what talk pages are for, and they're just not very good at this.

For example, look at the conversation that we're having right now. It's a sprawling mess of text, with overlapping subthreads running into each other. It's hard to read and hard to respond to, there's no way for me just to put this section on my watchlist, and I have to essentially reboot the conversation with an outdent in order to move the discussion forward. There has to be something better than this.

I've been working on Flow since I came to WMF, a little over a year ago. I know that the product designer who started the project a few years ago was kind of a loudmouth, and he burned a lot of bridges with a lot of people, saying all of the over-aggressive things that @Ymblanter: said. That was a dumb way of doing things, and it got this project off on the wrong foot. All I can say is that he's not at the Foundation anymore, and I'm not him. I don't think that Flow is an unstoppable force that we're going to roll out with a steamroller. I just think it's a good idea, and the communities that use it are going to benefit a great deal from it.

Right now, I'd say we have about half of the features that we're going to need in order to deserve full deployment on every talk page on every wiki. There's a lot more work coming up. But we've got a really strong core product by now, and the communities that are currently using Flow on real pages are the ones that we actually listen to. Trying out Flow on Wikidata is a chance for our team to learn more about what your community needs, and it's a chance for you to influence how the final product is going to work. That's what we're doing here right now.

Okay, moving on to specific questions and ideas:

@TomT0m: about space for documentation: We just released a change today that puts the header info into a side rail, where you can have all the important information at the top of the page and still have a clear space for the discussions. As an extra benefit, the side rail has a toggle so you can hide it and make the discussion full width if you want.

@Nikki: Thank you for the detailed feedback about the VisualEditor/source input, and the timestamps. If I manage to survive writing this post, I'm going to go make a whole bunch of bug tickets and questions for our UX designer based on your feedback. It looks like @Pasleim: and @Visite fortuitement prolongée: had similar problems recognizing what the "switch to source" toggle was supposed to be. That's very helpful.

@Sjoerddebruin: We treat topic titles as text-only, so putting a template in the title just posts as text, as you can see in this thread. One reason why we do this is that the topic title itself is used as a link in watchlist, recent changes and contributions, so even if we rendered that "Combat Flight Simulator" template as a link in the topic header, it would still have to be a link to the topic page when it's on the watchlist. Also, people can use templates (accidentally or on purpose) to get around the character count limit, so you could basically transclude an entire page into the topic header. People have done that, and it's super annoying. I'd suggest putting the link in the first message instead.

Another response for TomT0m: We've had a quoting feature hovering in the backlog for the last year, but people haven't been asking for it very much. It's hard to put a quoting feature into a wikitext reply field, because you have to use templates or divs to handle rendering the quotes, and if somebody messes up the div then the whole thing breaks. So basically, we're using the indentation for sub-threads and the mentions module for pings.

@Ricordisamoa: Speaking of indentation -- phab:T93883 is resolved. There's no way for a structured discussion system to precisely match the cultural practices around indenting in wikitext conversations, and as I said above, I don't think that's a worthwhile goal. The model that we have now has had a much better response overall compared to the old system. It's time for us to use what we've got, and move on.

@Jura1: Thanks for the note about Whatlinkshere; I'll file a bug ticket for that too.

And... there's probably a bunch of things that I've forgotten to mention, but this message needs to end sometime, so it might as well be now. Let me know what you think; I'm really happy to be having these conversations with you. DannyH (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it help to put it on test.wikidata.org? That would be a less drastic step and allow for people to get a better sense of what it would look like before everything is converted on a large production site, irreversably. --Rschen7754 04:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: We already have the two test pages I linked in my original post here. But if you think it'd make a difference I guess Danny can also enable it for (some) pages on test.wikidata.org. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@DannyH (WMF): The posts don't appear to be in namespace 2600 (at least, when looking at user contributions. @Innocent bystander: mentioned it.
Another issue with the user contributions page is that all posts appear if one ticks both "Only show edits that are latest revisions" and "Only show edits that are page creations". --- Jura 05:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I cannot claim to have understood this discussion, but one thing is very clear: the documentation on Talk page cannot be moved as statements into the items in the forseeable future. We are still trying to get to the stage of being able to express basic properties in statements. The whole of Wikidata is still at the stage of being a workaround. - Brya (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

How to get the value of a qualifier from a property if an other qualifier has a specific value?[edit]

Hello,

I'm trying to extract the publication date from version if version type is either stable version, beta version or alpha version. Is there a way to do that? I'm trying it out on the Wikidata Sandbox with Modèle:Infobox Logiciel/Bac à sable and Wikipédia:Wikidata/Bac à sable The RedBurn (ϕ) 18:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@The RedBurn: Before answering such questions, I'd like a discussion aboout the model … What's the bigger picture about software items model you have in mind. I'd like to see if it would be better to have one item per realease … But the answer anyway : use a scribunto module and code in luas. TomT0m (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick answer! What do you mean by one item per release? No alpha / beta version? Or either an alpha or beta version? Or only a stable version? Or no history of the versions? The RedBurn (ϕ) 18:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean items like for example <Linux 3.0> with statements like
< Linux 3.0 > instance of (P31) miga < Linux stable Release >
and in a similar model (and maybe the same properties) of the Wikiproject Book (see also Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Q16388) (View with Reasonator). This allows to put statements like added features and so on.
Well, it would probably be too much for the current intended use: the latest stable and unstable versions of a software for the French software infobox. The RedBurn (ϕ) 07:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@The RedBurn: We need to think bigger imho :) We got an effective model for this, and migrating to this later will be harder. The devteam has already deployed the feature needed to make this work on infoboxes on some projects (including Wikidata for tests). This overall is to reduce redundancy. TomT0m (talk) 08:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I guess you mean that for pages like Android_version_history, but those aren't the majority and it could be done differently just for them, without adding complexity to the majority. The RedBurn (ϕ) 08:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@The RedBurn: I does not add complexity to have only one model, it makes things more simple. It just add a little extra work : creating an item for a release. That's all. TomT0m (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: I think it also adds complexity to have multiple items for one page. And that extra work isn't needed for 99.9 % of the pages, so I personally think it's overkill and I won't try to find a consensus to change the current system, but feel free to do so. The RedBurn (ϕ) 08:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@The RedBurn: There is very often several items for one page (see the discussion about Wikivoyage earlier ;). What's the current system by the way ? We should create Wikidata:WikiProject Software anyway. I think it's a good thing in Wikidata to have, in general, precise items. For example in the opensource world, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (Q215273) (View with Reasonator) is an item that refers to tons of versions, tons of feature. It quickly needs a more sophisticated model if we want to be expressive, like pointing to a specific version of a sotware included into a version of RHEL. It turns out we have one, at a very low cost. With adding features to version made easy later. Plus the power of Wikidata who will make this available to all Wikipedias so the maiftenance cost will be overall reduced … It would be a shame to do less :) TomT0m (talk) 08:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@TomT0m: Well, the infobox of Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux doesn't seem like it needs that. So it would seem like fixing something that isn't broken and/or killing a fly with a cannon (against Confucius' advice). The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@The RedBurn: Infoboxes are not very sophisticated … Wikidata is far more expressive. Are not such changes a time to think a little bit ? Maybe the infobox is like that just because it was very hard to do better at that time. Now things have changed, opportunity to think again … We're into no rush ;) Maybe we should involve the local communities ? TomT0m (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #159[edit]

Adding coordinates[edit]

It states that en:Newfound Regional High School doesn't have a coordination on wikidata, so how'd I put that on here? The coordinate is 43° 36′ 25.2″ N, 71° 40′ 37.2″ W Nick2crosby (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick. Welcome to wikidata. Here are my comments for you:
To link to an item on wikidata you need to use the q number Q19962872 as we can have lots of items with the same label. There are a couple of cute templates for doing this too. Newfound Regional High School ( Q19962872) shows the label in the readers preferred language. Newfound Regional High School (Q19962872) (View with Reasonator) includes a link to Reasonator - a cool interface for displaying our data.
I changed to the statement you added. Most thing on wikidata are an 'instance of' something. Getting that right helps the property suggester find the most helpful suggestions. Now that there is an 'instance of:high school' statement you will find that if you try to add more statements our property suggester has 'coordinate location' as one of the top suggestions so I'm going to leave it to you to add the coordinates (unless someone else gets there first).
Wikidata:Showcase_items is a good place to see what good items look like, though we don't seem to have any other high schools there yet.
Hope that helps. Filceolaire (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Tracking changes that just impact Wikivoyage?[edit]

Wikivoyage has 18 separate language communities, and we are using WikiData for our banner images so that (for example) a banner created for one destination can be automatically reused everywhere.

One identified scenario is that if somebody on 'Language X' Wikivoyage uploads a banner that is of worse quality than the one it is replacing on English Wikivoyage, then it will not appear in our wiki's 'recent changes' and basically go unnoticed.

A deeper discussion can be seen here

Does anyone here have any suggestions about how we can monitor these changes that impact Wikivoyage without tracking the 'recent changes' of all WikiData items? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You can go to Special:RecentChanges on Wikivoyage and monitor the changes (you may have to turn on "Show Wikidata edits" in Preferences, or in the header). --Rschen7754 02:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Andrewssi2: gadget from ruwiki let's you monitor changes even with extended watchlist. Another option is to create bot that updates special page s with, let's say, 100 last updates of «page banner» property on all item. -- VlSergey (gab) 06:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholic bishop (Q611644)[edit]

I'm adding Catholic bishop (Q611644) for example here Joseph Hii Teck Kwong (Q1707237) do you think is the right way? occupation (P106)->priest (Q42603) position held (P39)->Catholic bishop (Q611644) religion (P140)->catholicism (Q1841) --Rippitippi (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholic bishop (Q611644) is good for 'position held'. This can have qualifier (of (P642):Roman Catholic Diocese of Sibu (Q876489)).
Religion should be 'Catholic Church (Q9592)'. catholicism (Q1841) is a wider term that includes people that are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church. Look at other more famous bishops for additional properties to add.
Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a added the qualifiers for position held (P39) as well as adding his previous position as auxiliary bishop (Q75178) and therefore as Titular see (Q15217609), as well as the properties Catholic Hierarchy person ID (P1047) and consecrator (P1598) which are also quite useful for Catholic bishops. Only thing I am not sure about - should we use the date of appointment or the date of consecration for start time (P580)?
Its the date of consecration that counts. He is not a bishop before consecration. If the person dies one dey before consecration, he is not a bishop no matter if he is appointed. A bishop can have several appointments, the day he begins his service in the new diocese (Q665487) counts. It is also a good idea to use diocese (P708).--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

We have also Catholic priest (Q250867) it is not redundant Catholic Church (Q9592) Catholic bishop (Q611644)? --Rippitippi (talk) 10:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In P140, you could hardly add Catholic priest (Q250867). --- Jura 11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In religion (P140), there are more items with catholicism (Q1841) than with Catholic Church (Q9592). Should we convert them? --- Jura 11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jura1, Rippitippi, Giftzwerg 88, Filceolaire: A possible data structure:

Snipre (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Catholic priest (Q250867) and Catholic bishop (Q611644) are not useful: we can cross religion (P140): catholicism (Q1841) with occupation (P106):priest (Q42603) or occupation (P106):bishop (Q29182) to get the same information. Better to delete these items. Snipre (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The items exist because the wikilinks exist. They should be used because of that. --Izno (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not because an item exists that we have to use especially when the item is created for managing links and not based on a classification. Just take the example of bishop: we have auxiliary bishop and catholic bishop. How can I manage auxiliary bishop from the Catholic church ? Do I have to create an item catholic auxiliary bishop ? Snipre (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I'd like to recall a class item could pretty much be associated to a query. It's not a problem to keep them in such a case, it's an opportunity to check if all instances are resuts of a query. TomT0m (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You think with a technical point of view and not with a classification point of view: the problem is if I have a catholic priest and I want to use that level of the classification for person items I should be able to do the same for all religions which have a priest. So for example I should have an item for old catholic priest. This lead to the creation of items which are not necessary because they are just intersections of existing definitions. If I can define a catholic priest, why can't I have an item "dead person" for example ? Or French dead person ? Or French female dead person or perhaps French dead woman is better? For me this kind of question about classifications should be discussed in a help page. Snipre (talk) 22:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: I don't think you see things clearly : there will be entities for queries. So I don't see a point in this kind of item economy. Second I'm definitely talking of classification. My point is that technically we have no problem dealing with such classes. I think it's a chance. TomT0m (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth have a catholic bishop? A bishop is an office, the person who has it is a priest and he or she is of a particular branch of religion.. WHY HAVE IT ? GerardM (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not? Seems more specific and informative than not having it. --Yair rand (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @GerardM: Because if someone is a bishop there is a set of statements that can automatically added. For example. We know his religion, that he is a priest. For example. Because there may be a list of bishop page. because someone wanted it and as we can manage thiss we don't want to delete/restore fight. TomT0m (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@GerardM, TomT0m: A bishop is not a function in the catholic religion, this is a state. Bishop receives special privileges which are not linked to his office but to his person. So priest and bishop items are correct, auxiliary and titular bishop too, but catholic bishop or catholic priest are a different way to classify items. We see the problem to specify that a catholic bishop has only an auxiliary position: we have two item "auxiliary bishop" and "catholic bishop". How do we have to use them ? If we accept combined items we should theoretically create "auxiliary catholic bishop" item or we have to specify that "auxiliary bishop" should be used only for position held (P39) and "catholic bishop" for occupation (P106).
The problem is not to economise items, the problem to provide the guidelines which will offer later the insurance that a query will be complete based on a similar way to describe items. Typical problem: if some items use occupation (P106)->priest (Q42603) with religion->catholic and other ones occupation (P106)->Catholic priest (Q250867) how we can get in one query all items for catholic priests ? The only way is to force people to use occupation (P106)->Catholic priest (Q250867). But now how can I get all priests from the Old Catholic Church ? I don't have an item "Old Catholic priest" so do I have to create it to keep a similar structure to Catholic priest (Q250867) ? Here we see the consequences of that system: we need a systematic creation of all combinations. This is not a problem just an organization to create and a management to follow. If we keep a "key words" system meaning we try to separate as much as possible the description criteria into different items and we combine these criteria only for query prupose we are getting out of the creation of combined items which is an endless work. Snipre (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: A class can be defined by a query. Theorically a reasoner could infer that an item that is in the result set of a query is an instance of (P31) the class, but also that an instance of the class has the properties that, if are not explicitely stated, would make the item in the result set of a query. As Wikidata is not that powerful, this means that we would have to do the work semi-automatically. Possible workflow: I know that our item is an auxiliary bishop. I make him a member of the auxiliary bishop class. A bot or a tool knows the class expression (or the query) that defines the auxiliary bishop class. After I or some other validated, he adds the missing statement without I having to do it manually. Note that anyway, if you want the auxiliary catholic bishop class, you still have to create an item for the query in the initial development plan as "on the fly" arbitrary query were not supported. This means it's no extra work actually wrt. explosive combination. The choice is which query do we make wrt. which class do we create. No difference. Because, no, we don't have to create every combinations. Eventually if there is a good query we could even delete the concrete statement that he is a catholic auxiliary bishop. I pretty much see in the future that a list of the queries an item is a result of can be exposed of the item page, maybe in the form of inferred P31, why not ? TomT0m (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, when we cannot even have the religion right, this difference about all kinds of bishop is not understood at all by the people we do it for. GerardM (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

so we can get to a guideline? --Rippitippi (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rippitippi: My recommandation (for catholic clergy):
If you want to use Catholic priest (Q250867) or Catholic bishop (Q611644) add them after adding the previous data structure. At least like that we are sure to be able to query all catholic persons just using religion (P140).
Snipre (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: shouldn't invalid ID (P104) be religion (P140)? Mbch331 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of this is the same conversation that was happening over at the property proposal for religious rank. Please check that for some other editors' thoughts too. Note also that the word "consecrator" is not always canonically valid — a bishop is "consecrated" but a priest is "ordained" and a cardinal is "elevated," etc. When I asked for more properties around that (say, "ordained by" or "elevated by") nobody liked that, and I was told to use conferred by (P1027). (By that logic, consecrator (P1598) should be deleted.) Also, it's imperative to use start time (P580) and end time (P582) if everyone insists that "bishop" is a "position held" — see Joseph Ritter (Q1706916) for an instance where the same person was archbishop of numerous places. Sweet kate (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sweet kate You mix event and actor. A priest is ordained by a bishop but there is no special title for the bishop which is doing the ordination. So the title of consecrator is not totally correct but as there is no special title this is not totally wrong. And a cardinal is not elevated but created and a bishop is not a position in the catholic tradition. Snipre (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Snipre: @Filceolaire: So we must use Catholic Church (Q9592) or catholicism (Q1841) ? --Rippitippi (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

deleted property[edit]

What happens here? Thank you, Conny (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC).

As the property P132 (I remember it was "type of administrative unit" and was replaced by instance of (P31)) is deleted, the software cannot now access metadata of the property. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Maybe a paper cut? It's a little rough to use the generic error interface message in the edit history. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Not nice. I'll see if we can improve this. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

P1900[edit]

Those of you who like to keep track of our milestones might like to note that I have just created EAGLE id (P1900). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Property:P31 with encyclopedic article (Q17329259)?[edit]

Hello, is it advisable (as I did) to use Property:P31 with encyclopedic article (Q17329259)? Jonathan Groß (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan Groß: That depndds, onwhich item ? For a Wikipedia article it's not, but in the case of an item about an article of another encyclopedia … it is. TomT0m (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
On Q19828642 (Q19828642). Yes, this or a more specific one. Obviously, someone should probably set it for all pages of the same book at once.
More important is main subject (P921). --- Jura 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's what I had in mind. main subject (P921) would be more difficult to fill automatically.
I want to tag all articles from the Pauly encyclopedia. Can I add another property that states that these articles come from this specific encyclopedia? Jonathan Groß (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
One solution is to create an item <Pauly encyclopedia's article>, with
< Pauly encyclopedia's article > subclass of (P279) miga < encyclopedic article (Q17329259) (View with Reasonator) >
. An use instance of (P31). It's also possible to use part of (P361). TomT0m (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


To add, published in (P1433) with Paulys Realenzyklopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Q1138524), you can use this.
As the main topic is already defined in a template, someone might be able to extract that and add it. --- Jura 17:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To scan for articles only, the category "RE:Autoren nach Artikelzahl" might be the most suitable one. --- Jura 17:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you :) I started creating the items with the Item Creator. I suppose it will be running all night. I'll add the properties when all the items are created. Jonathan Groß (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What happens with stalled proposals?[edit]

What happens with proposals, which went inactive? I've proposed something (the IRAC-Code) at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science, but then lost interest at Wikidata, because I had much to do in REALLIFE but also on my home Wikipedia. Now I can't find it – is there a unsearchable hell for stalled proposals?--Kopiersperre (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If you ask me they just should be created after one month or so if no one oppose. Or faster. TomT0m (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean Wikidata:Property proposal/Archive/31#IRAC code? (Special:Search, advanced search, Wikidata and Property namespaces, then found). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

New property needed?[edit]

Is there any property available to link United States Secretary of State (Q14213) with United States Department of State (Q789915) or vice versa? The closest I could find were officeholder (P1308)/position held (P39) and chairperson (P488), but they are limited to items about humans, and this case is about a position in an organisation. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 04:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Property "part of". Snipre (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the point is to specify that the United States Secretary of State (Q14213) is the head of the United States Department of State (Q789915), not just a generic part of it. --Yair rand (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
So use office held by head of government (P1313) after modifying the label. Snipre (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
That would drastically change the meaning of the property. office held by head of government (P1313) is used on items for countries and political divisions and such, not their governments. --Yair rand (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Q20000000[edit]

Hmm .. yeah .. --- Jura 09:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Technically, it's not an encyclopedic article but a cross reference. Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

'Label list' for IP users[edit]

How can a user, who is not logged in, see a list of all the labels, descriptions and aliases, in every applicable language, for an item? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs).

feature request[edit]

Do not know where to do so: What do you think of feature, if new item is created systems gives me after adding first statement, fe. is a book, easy to add other statements via one click (they appear as grey boxes down there). So I can fill easy things need to be filled for a book. Btw: Is Phab also for this? Thank you, Conny (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

I asked here for more easy integration, too. Conny (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

To some extent it works like this. If you add P31:Q5, it suggests P21. That doesn't work for values though. It could suggest male or female, etc.
It also works for qualifiers, although you need to save your statement first without a qualifier (maybe this is a bug).
If you want a more dedicated interface, try WE-Framework#FRBR_Work_Editor. --- Jura 10:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, you seem to want to copy over Worldcat .. well, you can just add an identifier for a work and then people can read more about it there. --- Jura 10:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the hint with editor, I'll try. Conny (talk) 10:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Internal Wikidata note appearing at top of article in Wikipedia Android app[edit]

I just noticed that if you view [2] on the mobile app for Wikipedia for Android - but not if you view it in an ordinary web browser - the description from Wikidata for the Twin item is shown at the top of the page. This would not be such a problem were it not for the fact that the description includes an internal note only meant to be read by Wikidata editors - "Use with P31 on items for one twin".

I suggest that there should be a separate property for such internal notes, if there isn't already, to avoid confusing readers of the mobile app for Wikipedia.--Greenrd (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

There is some discussion about this problem in phab:T97566. I agree that a new property would be a sensible option, although I expect that the website would need to make use of it before people would actually stop putting usage notes in the item description. - Nikki (talk) 12:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Art people![edit]

Should Portrait of a Fat Man (Q18508785) and Portrait of a Fat Man (Q18689079) be merged? --Magnus Manske (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

That seems like two different paintings, as can be seen in Commons:Category:Portrait of a Fat Man by Campin - 2 versions (Gemäldegalerie Berlin and Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza Madrid) (hairstyle is a bit different). --Zolo (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Shared articles of two Wikipedias[edit]

How can I figure out, how many items have an article in both German Wikipedia (Q48183) and French Wikipedia (Q8447)?--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

674,932 [1] but that are not only articles but all kind of pages. --Pasleim (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Or with Autolist (676,093). If you want to limit it to people, add and claim[31:5] (180,518). --- Jura 15:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Link count ≠ article count?[edit]

Why is the link count of a language version (from autolist) much higher than the article count from en:List of Wikipedias?

per WDQ links[xy] per Special:Statistics
en 6151171 4880140
sv 2225481 1966516
de 2062441 1819316
nl 1927267 1822484
fr 1903803 1627748
ru 1498975 1224838
it 1465671 1201071
es 1405855 1177844
vi 1248844 1133345
pl 1236932 1114096
ja 1125782 968435
pt 1054782 875341
zh 1003540 821300
fa 751579 452288
uk 654814 571614

--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikidata also connects categories and other pages outside the mainspace. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Have a look at Wikidata:List_of_queries#Main_groups_of_items. About 25% of items are about categories and disambiguation. --- Jura 21:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of TranslateThis?[edit]

What do you think about using Template:TranslateThis in places like discussion pages or WikiProject pages? I’ve used it on a few discussion pages where the item was very German-specific and I expected the majority of people visiting it to use German instead of English as a language. I also thought about using it on WikiProject sites, which look a bit weird with a mixture of English text and translated Template:Q labels… but then it’s unclear what editors who don’t speak all translated languages should do. Thoughts?DSGalaktos (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Verstehe ich für Wikidata nicht, Wikidata:Forum kennst Du?--Oursana (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that all use of templates in headers makes it difficult to understand the edithistory in pages. The editcomments does then not fit the headers and it can be difficult to identify under which header the last comment was added. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)