Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/11

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Little technical problem with Wikipedia:Goings-on (Q5268366)

I got Wikipedia:Goings-on (Q5268366) in "no-statements" - but I have not link/button to add a claim… do you have the same problem ?

thanks for fixing it, if possible :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have it (IE 11). --ValterVB (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess, you are an admin, Hsarrazin is not? logs? --Diwas (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Protected (admins only) on 15 January 2014. 76.24.193.7 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You can either use {{Editprotected}} on the talk page or post a request on the admin notice board. 76.24.193.7 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ops, I haven't checked sorry. What do you want add? --ValterVB (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

sorry, I just did not think that it could be protected :) - I wanted to add instance of (P31)Wikimedia project page (Q14204246), just to take it off the list. thanks. --Hsarrazin (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User interface changes

There has been a new change to the User Interface (UI). You can still add items quickly by shutting off javascript, but you will no longer see an "add" link at the bottom in that blank space where it previously appeared, but that functionality has been moved to the "edit" link at the top, which does not allow you to edit anything, but instead directs you to the add screen, which operates as previously. 76.24.193.7 03:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata turns two!

Hey folks :)

Today Wikidata is turning two. It amazes me what we've achieved in just 2 years. We've built an incredible project that is set out to change the world. Thank you everyone who has been a part of this so far. We've put together some notes and opinions. And there are presents as well! Check them out and leave your birthday wishes: Wikidata:Second Birthday

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So fast! It was just one year, anyway, congrats and thanks to the awesome team! --Stryn (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! I look forward for the day wikidata will be 10, 20, 30 years old :) Xaris333 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Birthday gift: Missing Wikipedia language links

As you know, many Googlers are huge fans of Wikipedia. So here’s a little gift for Wikidata’s second birthday.

Some of my smart colleagues at Google have run a few heuristics and algorithms in order to discover Wikipedia articles in different languages about the same topic which are missing language links between the articles. The results contain more than 35,000 missing links with a high confidence according to these algorithms. We estimate a precision of about 92+% (i.e. we assume that less than 8% of those are wrong, based on our evaluation). The dataset covers 60 Wikipedia language editions. The data is published under CC-0.

What can you do with the data? Since it is CC-0, you can do anything you want, obviously, but here are a few suggestions:

There’s a small tool on WMF labs that you can use to verify the links (it displays the articles side by side from a language pair you select, and then you can confirm or contradict the merge). The tool does not do the change in Wikidata itself, though (we thought it would be too invasive if we did that). Instead, the results of the human evaluation are saved on WMF labs. You are welcome to take the tool and extend it with the possibility to upload the change directly on Wikidata, if you so wish, or, once the data is verified, to upload the results.
Also, Magnus is already busy uploading the data to the Wikidata game, so you can very soon also play the merge game on the data directly. He is also creating the missing items on Wikidata. Thanks Magnus for a very pleasant cooperation!

I want to call out to my colleagues at Google who created the dataset - Jiang Bian and Si Li - and to Yicheng Huang, the intern who developed the tool on labs.

I hope that this small data release can help a little with further improving the quality of Wikidata and Wikipedia! Thank you all, you are awesome! Happy Birthday! --Denny (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic! Can't wait to play it, I already logged in. But I have a problem!

. I suggest that you use the HTML from action=render rather than frames, it will be much faster and reliable. --Nemo 19:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC) P.s.: I'm logged in and hard refresh didn't help, no idea what's going on here. I can't play with this bug. :( I'll wait for Magnus or action=render.

Ouch! Doesn't edit=render though mess up all the CSS? (iirc, when I was trying it out) --Denny (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think using the mobile version of the website might also do the job. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 21:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Bene*, the mobile site has banners as well now. Denny, I'm not sure about CSS but the essential content should get through; mw:API:Parsing wikitext is supposed to contain the necessary information. --Nemo 08:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

We'll probably won't be working on the code - but anyone feel free to fix it. Or wait until Magnus is finished with loading :) --Denny (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Denny, Anorange0409: If you want to upload the change, please make "Edit existing pages" applicable to consumer.--GZWDer (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Denny: Awesome! However, I cannot use the tool with my user name (note á and ě). It shows me an SQL error:

Illegal mix of collations (latin1_swedish_ci,IMPLICIT) and (utf8_general_ci,COERCIBLE) for operation '=' . I have to use my bot's account (MatSuBot) and it works there. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the edits doesn't propagate to Wikidata, is there some additional caching or validation of the input? Jeblad (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you read "The tool does not do the change in Wikidata itself, though (we thought it would be too invasive if we did that). Instead, the results of the human evaluation are saved on WMF labs."? --Stryn (talk) 11:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry missed that. But then why does it ask for login credentials if it can't use it? Jeblad (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect to not be making actual edits, since I'm used to using the Wikidata Game, which does exactly the same thing (although using the plain text of pages rather than the nice touch of embedding the pages) and commits edits to Wikidata. Innotata (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Birthday gift #2: Cupcake Userbox

Thanks everybody for making this such a great project: See: Wikidata:Userboxes

This user is celebrating Wikidata's 2nd birthday.

Tobias1984 (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I'd forgotten that today was Wikidata's second birthday. I'm not that active here anymore, I guess. Anyway, congrats to everyone who has contributed. --Jakob (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with wikidata in greek

Hello. There is a problem with wikidata in Greek. In English version we have

Wikipedia pages linked to this item (3 entries) [edit]

In Greek language the sentence is too big and the word καταχωρήσεις (entries) is above [επεξεργασία] (edit). The problem is the same also for wikinews, wikiquote, wikisource, wikivoyage and Pages on other sites linked to this item. Can be solved? Xaris333 (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem (I think) is that css class wikibase-toolbar-container has position:absolute (somewhere) and needs to be moved about 180 pixels to the right because long headings are expanding on top of the span. -geraki ^talk 06:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone solve the problem? Xaris333 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this help you understand the problem... Xaris333 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, someone needs to create a shorter translation than "Σελίδες της Βικιπαίδειας που συνδέονται με αυτό το αντικείμενο" (Wikipedia pages for this item),[1] like "Σελίδες της Βικιπαίδειας". 76.24.193.7 01:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, where I can do that? Xaris333 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xaris333: On translatewiki if you have translator access there (it is not difficult to get it). The message are wikibase-sitelinks-wikivoyage and wikibase-sitelinks-wikipedia, wikibase-sitelinks-wikisource, wikibase-sitelinks-wikiquote, wikibase-sitelinks-wikinews. Or a sysop can do it locally for you but it makes localisation stuff more messy.

Also it is possible to create a bug ticket for this but I am not sure whether it makes sense as new UI is being created. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible to provide a notification of the intended release date of a new UI, and perhaps a heads up of what is going to be new? And a notification that it has been changed with a link to a list of changes? 76.24.193.7 07:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Many thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging via "Add links" results in blank entries

I see that the "Add links" feature on projects now lets you merge data items, which I'm pretty sure it didn't in the past. However, it results in blank entries, rather than redirecting or nominating duplicates for deletion or otherwise marking them as having been merged. I noticed this in an item merged by Amire80, who has been merging a lot of items with this feature, and brought this up with him. There has got to be a pretty huge number of blank items created this way…I suggest taking away the ability to merge from "Add links" until there's a way to deal with blank items. Innotata (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what kind of problems empty items cause... at some point they'll be deleted, so what? - Hoo man (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Innotata, Hoo man: This is bugzilla:57745.--GZWDer (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Seeking feedback for planned edits related to my project

Hi. I have a research project exploring the history of the Esperanto movement. I am digitizing an address book of pioneer Esperantists, which contains information about 21,594 people who learned Esperanto between 1889 a 1909, about 8 % of whom are notable on Esperanto Wikipedia and perhaps other language Wikipedias. In the process, I use links to Wikidata items to uniquely identify old states, regions and places that appear in the address book. Sometimes, the corresponding items do not have geographical coordinates yet, which I need to obtain in order to be able to display all the people on a map. Eventually, I would like to link the notable people to their Wikidata items and store their number in that address book within the item, so that it can later be used in the eo:Ŝablono:Informkesto esperantisto infobox and alike.

Before I proceed to mass edits, I would like to ask someone for feedback on my current idea of how those information that I can give back to Wikidata should be structured. If you think you can help me, please review Q1010812#P625 as an example of how I plan to add geographical coordinates to a historic region (I have written a bot that looks up the capital of that region in Russian Wikipedia's infobox and takes those – and I try to express this in references), and also Q18413#P106 as an example of how I currently note the person's number in the address book (as a reference for the fact of him/her being an Esperantist). Do you think it might be useful if I request creating a new property for the number/ID of the person in that database? The list is closed, but those people on it used to refer to themselves using that number as a kind of unique ID in the past. I can imagine that having that ID in a property of its own would make it easier to access it from within an infobox and pointing Wikidata users to the corresponding line in the digitalized address book (which I plan to post on Wikisource). I will be glad for any suggestions. --Blahma (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Your coordinates for old states looks fine to me. Over the next few years I expect these will be superceded by better information - coordinates for north/south/east/westernmost points; links to open street maps boundary objects but these coordinates are a good start.

For more obscure info (member of Esperanto Language committee) I think it would be better to include a reference. In this case a reference to the address book itself, as a primary source, would IMHO be acceptable. Use section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) as a qualifier to give the index number. That way you don't need a new property - though you do have to upload to wikisource first. Filceolaire (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

For the Esperantist address book, it might be easier to create a new property and add this to items for people directly instead of hiding it as qualifier in some of the statements. --- Jura 08:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Filceolaire and Jura, thank you for your valuable feedback. I have just uploaded coordinates for a few dozens of historic Russian governorates. The address book is not merely a list of language committee members, but truly a resource that aimed to list if possible all Esperanto speakers in those early years, so I have come to think that it still makes sense to request a new property for this, as Jura suggested. I have submitted a proposal and would of course be delighted if you could briefly add your voice to the related discussion. Thank you! --Blahma (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

False "featured article"

The pamwiki article on author Stephen Crane is a partly translated clone of the enwiki article.
Enwiki is featured. The featured tag got cloned to pamwiki.
Is that something we correct here, or back in the source article?
Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted also here. --ValterVB (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, good.

Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

English Heritage list number (P1216)

Can anyone explain why property National Heritage List for England number (P1216) sometimes creates a link to the English Heritage online catalogue and sometimes does not? - PKM (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A number of properties seem to have this behavior; perhaps some asynchronous process is making the links? It's also the case with coordinate location (P625); sometimes you get a map hyperlink and sometimes not. --Delirium (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The link is made by the gadget AuthorityControl, which sometimes works and sometimes not. --Pasleim (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Initially purge the page (another gadget available) otherwise push the cache on your page. Presumably related to components asynchronously loading through the AC gadget, with the mw.loader not getting that component done prior to rendering. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably should have said that we just have the reference number, and the process to convert that to a url is done independently on loading. If this becomes an issue, and you want it to be more reliable, then stop it being a gadget, and add it first to your Special:MyPage/common.js and then it should be given higher precedence and more time to work (is my understanding). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Heads up: Mass item creation

I am (through my bot) in the process of creating ~10K items. Many of these will be duplicates, and merged into other items. But there is madness in the method, which I can't reveal at the moment; it will become clear soon-ish. Please bear with me... --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

See below :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Magnus Manske, it's a little bit boring to merge all these unnecessary created items regarding taxa. This could be done better by your bot. --Succu (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to use the game to mark the ones that can be merged, and have a bot come along afterwards and do all of the merges? Or even do that every time we see an item that can be merged - always let a bot do the work? 76.24.193.7 21:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Interface - section - In other languages

I use the English language interface, and I am currently editing from Germany, then on the page for Q4125392 - an item related to the Russian Empire - the WikiData interface shows me

Deutsch
Plattdüütsch
Mainfränkisch

This is really nasty. Please can someone fix this? Vladimir Gribochev (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata by default gives you three other languages from the country you're editing from (or nearby countries, otherwise) as languages you might be interested in. For example by default, editing in Denmark with English setting, I would get the three languages: Danish, Kalaallisut, and German (Kalaallisut's main language area is by no means "nearby" Copenhagen, certainly not closer than Swedish, but is technically in Denmark, which seems to be how the decision is made). You can override these choices. The easiest way is to add babel tags to your user page declaring which languages you can understand. The three languages you are most fluent in (other than your chosen interface language) will then be the ones shown there. As a result, I now get Danish, German, and Greek. --Delirium (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"nasty" was meant to indicate, that I am not interested in any of the three that I listed. I am interested in the statements, I did choose "English" as interface language for a reason. That I currently reside in Germany, does not make me interested in Mainfränkisch. Never ever have been molested with Mainfränkisch before. Everyone editing from Germany will see Mainfränkisch, and everyone editing from Denmark will see Kalaallisut by default? Ridiculous. Vladimir Gribochev (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a bit silly, I'll agree. Obviously few of the people given "Mainfränkisch" as a choice will actually read or write that language—it is probably more likely that they read or write French. I am not sure who made this decision, but it seems to be the current default. --Delirium (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vladimir Gribochev: It is also important that you communicate your technical difficulties without using language like "molested with Mainfränkisch". On the internet any kind of communication is very prone to becoming uncivil rather quickly. As a project of educated people we have to make every effort to not become the next name-calling website. -Tobias1984 (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Tobias1984, it's not really "his technical difficulties", isn't it. This implementation is a decision by wikidata development that places their wishes/needs (to push maximum eyeballs onto language descriptions and/or to collect public user babel tags) above the wishes/needs of users (to have their language user preferences respected, to not waste your time and your top screenspace with useless white boxes for languages/dialects you're not interested in, to not be forced to publish user babel tags). Calling that nasty may not be very constructive, but using the tone argument isn't either. --Atlasowa (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Vladimir Gribochev is a sockpuppet of user Tobias Conradi, who was banned from the English Wikipedia several years ago. If they start any disruption, I am going to block them here on the spot.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Authority control gadget failure

As noted last month, the Authority control gadget is not working, for me and others. Who do we speak to, about finding a solution? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the links or some of the links? Browser similarities? Skin similarities? Have you undertaken problem solving to see if it is other gadgets or other settings that are in conflict? Tried turning them of all other gadgets, and then turning them on one by one? [For me the gadget works, so it is not the gadget alone, or a change in the underlying system (Firefox, monobook) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Different article types in one Wikidata item

Can we have both "normal" articles and disambiguation pages in one Wikidata item?

I personnaly think it is the purpose of Wikidata to connect articles about the same topic and it shouldn't matter if, for example, in one language "John Smith" were a lengthy article, while in another language they created a disambiguation page, and yet in another language they formatted it as a list. The topic is the same, they all should be linked to each other.

The question rose in connection to these Wikidata items that now contain links both to articles abd disambiguation pages:

Q2954529 - 2006 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships
Q2954533 - 2012 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships

In this particular case the problem is that the men's and women's championships are separate competitions officially. But in fact, they are often held at the same arena in consecutive weeks, and people don't think about them as separate events. That's why in some languages there are two separate articles and in some there is only one covering both.

I think the topic is absolutely the same and therefore they all must be connected.

But FakirNL thought there should be 2 separate items, one for disambiguation pages and the other for articles. Like this:

2006 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships

[2] - "Wikimedia disambiguation page"
[3] - "both men's and women's tournament"

2012 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships

[4] - "Wikimedia disambiguation page"
[5] - "both men's and women's tournament"

I personally think this is inconvenient cause connecting them all is logical and helps both readers (who will be able to browse articles on the same topic in different languages) and editors (who wlll see there are two articles in English and will understand that there are officially two championships and will write better articles).

What do you think? --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Personnaly, I would create separate items as soon as there can be any problem with the interpretation, or when a wikipedia has separate articles. Michiel1972 (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

In this particular example, I created separate articles on purpose, especially for the purpose of connecting Wikipedias in different languages. Cause I found many unconnected articles about these championships, and I connected them all. I don't think they should be disconnected now simply because they are "technically" different types of articles according to Wikidata conventions (or whatever).
I was the one who created these disambiguation pages:

and I thought my mission was over cause now everything was connected and it was convenient to browse different languages.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, one more example:

One is titled "Women's AG Championships" and the other "AG Championships - Women's results". Same topic, but formally someone could argue they should be disconnected simply because one article is an article and the other is a list (a results table). --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The Portuguese page of the women's results and the English page of women's results should still be linked together because they are both articles with results tables. Neither of them is truly a list and the difference between them is minimal (the biggest difference is that one also details the juniors results while the other does not). The difference between an article page with both men's and women's results and a disambiguation page however is a lot larger and more fundamental, 2012 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships (Q2954533) still claims to be a "Wikimedia disambiguation page" in both the statements and in several language descriptions. If the statement is removed it will probably be added by a stubborn bot who sees the English page is a DP and automatically assumes the rest is as well.

One option could be to change the English, French (and Norwegian) disambiguation pages into real articles, even though they might still be very short with most of the details still in the separate men's and women's articles. As soon as they are not disambiguation pages anymore, they can be linked. Of course, that's just a solution for this case, and in general I still believe a disambiguation page should not be linked to a non-disambiguation page. - FakirNL (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it shouldn't matter if an article is an article or a disambiguation page. If they are about the same thing, they should be linked. I'm sure there are many cases like this in Wikidata. I think we shouldn't disconnect pages about the same thing because of a formal criteria.
And as I said, I created some of these disambiguation pages for the championships specially to connect different languages. Cause they were all disconnected and. for example, if someone in the Portuguese Wikipedia wanted to expand the Portuguese article, they wouldn't see the English article. I think everything should be connected as much s possible. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another example when there are both articles and disambiguation pages linked together:

Q196756 - Certificate

I think the items should not be disconnected. Cause it's just that in some languages it's created like a disambiguation page and in some it's an article explaining the meaning of the word and listing different types of certificates that exist. Like here:

no:Sertifikat

Or some wikis just explain what certificates are in prose:

sq:Certifikata

hr:Certifikat

And even if the article linked seems about some school certificates:

ht:Sètifika

we shouldn't just go and unlink it. Cause if we do, no one will ever find the article. And now, someone who knows what kind of certificates they call "certificates" in Haiti, will correct it sooner of later or link to some other atticle, about some particular type of certificates. The Haitian Creole entry doesn't do any harm. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I thoroughly agree we should link as much as possible, which is why I want to link disambiguation articles based on their meaning instead of their spelling, but not include different types of links. I would not link any articles to disambiguation pages, redirects, categories, or anything but other articles. Ditto for disambiguation pages and categories. Redirects do not have any place on wikidata. If someone wants to make an interwiki link to a redirect, make it on the local wiki page. The example being the de article about Michael Zehaf-Bibeau that wanted to make a link to the en article about the event (local interwiki links have been added and are waiting to be "sighted"). The only time there should ever be a link to a redirect is when an article is moved to a different title and the old article is a redirect, and only until someone notices that, and edits the wikidata item, correcting the error.See the discussion on redirects. 76.24.193.7 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Disambiguation pages" are just a type of article, just an artificial type of article. When I created these

I thought they were articles, I intended them to be articles (cause both the men's and the women's tournaments were held at the same venue in consecutive weeks, and many sources regard both championships as the same event), but I tagged them with {{disambiguation}} because they also performed the function of a disambiguation page.

Then someone comes and changes the Russian article into a simple, common disambiguation page:

ru:Чемпионат Европы по спортивной гимнастике 2014

So, what did he change? He removed a good explanation and removed the links to the official site and to the official results. (I didn't revert cause it's not worth it. I have other things to do.)

And what happens now is that because you think they are disambiguation pages you want to disconnect them. But I when I created them they were articles and for me personally the English one still is.

What I want to say that there's no difference, a so-called "disambiguation page" is an artificial, invented article type.

And what are these?

Are they articles or disambiguation pages? I can tag them as {{disambiguation}} pages right now and I will be right. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the Esperanto one is tagged as a disambiguation page already.
But this one that says basically the same thing as everywhere else in the lead and then elaborates it, is not:

it:Certificato. It also serves as a disambiguation page, see the "Voci correlate" section. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What about, a special page, that shows a cloud about an article, using connections by items and by properties like part of (P361) and using wikilinks from disambiguation pages to articles, to show a structure with all related pages, whatever the forms of the pages are? --Diwas (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of to a normal wikidata item, when you click on the interwiki link at the left (right for some languages) side of the page, you get a super-link that has a list of multiple places to look for each language? By the way, though, disambiguation pages are as different from articles as categories are from articles. They are only a list of links, and each item on the page can have only one link per item, with a short description of the item. The primary uses are listed first, with a short description of what they have in common, followed by the other uses, and finally a see also section if needed for items that are not spelled the same but are similar, with the rules being the same, only one link per item, no redlinks, if there is no article for the item but another article has something about it link to that. I notice that some languages have redlinks on their disambiguation pages, but they are completely useless, and need to immediately be stubbed into an article that can then be linked through a wikidata item (stubs that have nothing but the article title are completely acceptable, and highly useful once they are interlinked to other languages through wikidata). 76.24.193.7 07:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The special page should directly show the links to articles, maybe like a #combined interwikilink list. It should be able to show you all or only your languages. It can show you more than one link per language, what the sitelink not can do. It should serve total previews of disambiguation pages with live links, and previews of the lead section of articles. – Your idea to have dummy articles: The readers will be unhappy be find empty pages. In the future, there should be another way, to find from a redlink to other languages. --Diwas (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

For me there is one simple test: Can we make statements which apply to all the pages linked from this Qitem?

For 'John Smith' we should include all pages for which the statement "Subclass of:John (given name)" and "Subclass of:Smith (family name)" apply. A disambiguation page which is about a random collection of things which happen to have the same spelling is just a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page which links to bunch of related things is a wikidata class and can be described by a wikidata "Subclass of" statement.

The wikidata item for the 2006 gymnastics tournament is a "subclass of:Gymnastics tournament" and "Has part:mens 2006 tournament" and "has part:womens tournament" and any page for which these statements apply can be linked to this item.

It is all in the statements. Filceolaire (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

According to your interpretation (which is great, but...), all articles presently linked from Q196756 ("Certificate") can stay there. But... only until someone releases a song or shoots a movie or writes a book titled "Certificate". As soon as someone lists "Certificate (album)", the page must be unlinked. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the point! On disambiguation page you can found a lot of link not connected to each other. Every wiki have personal rules, but for the disambiguation are all the same (at least I haven't found difference for now): are a collection of link with the same spelling, but not connected together. On disambiguation page I can add every things, so we must keep on disambiguation page only disambiguation page. If some wiki have special case, must be managed in local wiki with old interlink. --ValterVB (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Addendum: some wiki, like it.wiki, have red link on disambiguation page, because they can stimulate the creation of new pages. --ValterVB (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I get it! It makes sense! (A disambiguation page lists random articles with the same spelling, while the current articles linked from the Wikidata items "Certificate" and "2006 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships" list articles that are connected to each other. So they aren't really disambiguation pages.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the following discussion should be a new section named Links and redlinks in disambiguation pages with the intro: (Spin-off from section #Different article types in one Wikidata item)

Redlinks are encouraged in articles, to stimulate creation of articles, but they are prohibited in disambiguation articles because they are useless - instead of "Huckleberry Finn, a character in Tom Sawyer", it needs to be "Huckleberry Finn, a character in Tom Sawyer", and the redlink for Huckleberry Finn needs to be in the Tom Sawyer article. The reason that dummy articles are super useful, is that from them you can find information from articles in 100 other languages about the subject, to either use, as a reader (especially from languages that you either can read or are somewhat similar to your own, or even that you can translate electronically), or use, as a wiki editor, to flush out the article (you learn to click on the major wiki's like en and de instead of the squiggly named ones - unless you are working on an article about a village in a squiggly character language country). They are incredibly useful for me right now, as I am doing translations for images, and I could care less anything about "Sulfur", all I care about is what it is called in 200+ languages, so that I can use it in the periodic table, so an article without even the name of the article in it is just as useful to me as an article with 100,000 bytes about Sulfur. Yes wikipedia has multiple uses, and no one can say that any one is more important than any other use. But if a particular disambiguation wikidata item, or even all of them, is or are being used only to be about the spelling of those words in the title, that needs to be either in a property or in the description. It clearly can not be assumed that that is what a "disambiguation page" item is for. The Left page certainly was not being used for that - until recently - and is still not being used only for that, as "pages about left as a direction" was recently added, perhaps to explain why the he link was there. 76.24.193.7 22:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks in disambiguation page are allowed in itwiki and I saw also in other wiki. If I search "Huckleberry Finn" who can say if I search Huckleberry Finn fictional character or Huckleberry Finn the 1920 movie? Huckleberry Finn Disambiguation page help me. --ValterVB (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would encourage all of the wikis to prohibit redlinks on disambiguation pages, as they are completely useless. I am not saying the item should not be on the disambiguation page, I am saying that if there is not an article, they need to find an appropriate article to link to instead, for the item. If those are the two items on the disambiguation pages, even a link to an article about fictional characters and an article about novels, or fictional characters, is more useful than making the articles that you want created into redlinks on a disambiguation page. It is sufficient that they are not a link for any editor to notice that and create an article about the subject. No one should be assumed to be so lazy that they can not copy and paste the item into the search box which will then create the redlink for you. 76.24.193.7 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But there are some redlinks to subjects, that have no target, no text about it in wikipedia. --Diwas (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just stub it, even with nothing in it, and wikidata link it to other articles in other languages. If you mean no article in any language, and that is quite common, still stub it, and create a wikidata item for it, or even just leave it without any link. Someone will come along and create or add to the article. But as a redlink on a disambiguation page it is difficult to obtain any context even. That is the purpose of having a live link to for example "novelist" for, say Samuel Clemens. 76.24.193.7 00:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks in disambiguation are useful if they have the correct name of article which can exists, see cs:Chlum. JAn Dudík (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

We are on Wikidata, we can't say to Wikipedia users that red link on disambiguation page are useful or useless. --ValterVB (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion wasn't about red links in disambiguation pages, but about the question whether disambiguation pages can be linked to regular articles on Wikidata. Can I conclude there is no consensus yet? - FakirNL (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no consensus to mix Disambiguation and regular pages. --ValterVB (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

ValterVB I disagree. I agree that there is consensus that disambiguation pages which purely deal with collections of things whose only connection is that they have the same spelling should connect to disambiguation pages about the same spelling. However I think that there is also consensus that pages which deal with related things should be linked to other pages about those things even if some are called DABs and some are called lists and some are articles. An example of such an item is an article/list/DAB for a "John Smith". Another example is "2006 European Artistic Gymnastics Championships". "Certificate" was a marginal case - could go either way.

If a wikipedia has a DAB page and an article then these should have separate items.
If a DAB page can be described in statements then it can probably be treated like a normal wikidata item and grouped with other WP pages which have the same statements.

OK? Filceolaire (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If we want mix disambiguation and regular page we can't use instance of (P31) = Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410). If we delete instance of (P31) = Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) I can be agree, I don't like but if there is consensus I accept it. --ValterVB (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem appears to stem from a lack of a uniform standard as to what constitutes an "article", "category", "list of" article, "DAB" (disambiguation) page. That seems to be pretty basic and pretty important to resolve, before we start thinking of linking one to another, and essentially cross wiring the links. Wikidata only handles the connections, but it does not work very well if different wikis have different types of objects they want linked. 76.24.193.7 03:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I think, wikidata has to handle, linking different article types, by linking items a level higher, or by a new property. --Diwas (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess the first problem to be solved are the bots who after seeing a description saying "Wikimedia disambiguation page" in one language may change descriptions in other languages to say the same thing. At least I see bots filling empty descriptions like this. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Consistent datatypes

Why does lowest point (P1589) and highest point (P610) have the datatype "item" while coordinates of northernmost point (P1332) and coordinates of southernmost point (P1333) have the datatype "coordinates"? I suggest a change of datatype so all extremepoints have the datatype "item". The northenmost point of Sweden (Q34) is Three-Country Cairn (Q1139153), not "69°3'36"N, 20°32'50"E". The coordinates just happens to be the location of the northenmost point. /ℇsquilo 15:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Esquilo: There are probably also differences in the northernmost survey measurement and the northernmost town. So we might need both data-types. -Tobias1984 (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Three-Country Cairn (Q1139153) is the point where the borders between Sweden, Finland and Norway actually meet. Northenmost town is Kiruna (Q83232) which is about 135 km south thereof. Extremepoints are usually relevant enough to have their own entries. /ℇsquilo 13:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Esquilo: I agree that a northernmost point (as item-statement) is notable and useful. We probably already have most items too: en:List of countries by northernmost point. But there is still a difference between the survey measurement of that place and the northernmost point probably on the scale of a few kilometres. A good example is the northernmost point of Estonia. Vaindloo (Q2096124) is an island and the coordinates should be roughly in the center. But the northernmost survey measurement would be the northern tip of that island. The question is, if we need this kind of precision in this place or if we can wait for geoshape-datatype. -Tobias1984 (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ℇsquilo; Tobias1984 The coordinate for Vaindloo (Q2096124) is in the center of the island but the coordinates for the northernmost point of Vaindloo (Q2096124) are a few kilometers north of those for the center of the Island. The coordinates for the northernmost point of Estonia should match the those for the northernmost point of Vaindloo (Q2096124), not the coordinates for the center of Vaindloo (Q2096124). Filceolaire (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

I am not involved to this, but what about a northernmost (relevant or known) geographic object until there is not a more precision statement available. --Diwas (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There was some discussion of using the "North/South/East/Westernmost coordinates to help automatically generate a map of an area at the right scale. For this you need coordinates. Having coordinates for these points lends itself to other queries such as comparing different items. If you feel the labels are incorrect then these can be changed. These properties can have qualifiers with 'item' datatype to give the administrative or geographic item where the point is located if you feel this information is useful.

If you feel that having coordinates for deepest and highest points would be useful then you can propose new properties for these. We will need a way to indicate how high and how deep these points once we have a 'number with units' datatype as that is something we will want to compare. Filceolaire (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like these properties are a hasty stop-gap measure while waiting for the geoshape datatype.

Coordinate-properties for deepest and highest points are not usefull (coordinate location (P625) can be used as a qualifier when needed, but more preferaby stored in the linked item). Item-properties for *most point are more useful. Using statement is subject of (P805) as a qualifier to a Coordinate-property feels very backwards. /ℇsquilo 09:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have serious doubts that a Geoshape datatype ever will give you exactly what you are looking for. They will only give you some rough numbers. The exact Geoshape of Belgium will for example never include all details of Baarle-Hertog or other parts of the border with such many small details.

Recently I crossed the border between Norway and Sweden. The large map and the traffic signs along the road told me I crossed the border once in each direction. When I found a more detailed map, it was obvious that I have crossed it about 10 times within a kilometer, since the road was located next to the border. The fields on my left side were Norwegian and the fields on the right side were Swedish, and the border most likely followed some old path, since long buried under the modern road, who have zigzagged across the landscape. That zigzag will you most likely never find in a Geoshape of Sweden or Norway. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have OpenStreetMap relation ID (P402) to link to geoshapes on Open Street Maps. Personally I think this is better than trying to save geo-shapes in wikidata. Let OSM do these and let us link to their work but keep the coordinates for the extreme coordinates too. Filceolaire (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding auto description for categories

Hello, I want to add description for categories (an example) please tell me if anything is not right (I'm suspicious about French) or if you want to add a language, please tell. Amir (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please add Finnish (fi) "Wikimedia-luokka" and Estonian (et) "Wikimedia kategooria". I think that many of them can be taken from Wikimedia category (Q4167836). --Stryn (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Both of them are added now. I just want to be sure because it's a rather huge-scaled contribution Amir (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The French one is ok. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I started Amir (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

See "Wikimedia category" in MediaWiki:Gadget-autoEdit.js. I thought user:ValterVBot also has a list of translations too, but can't find it. --Zolo (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is strange specially in Persian which is different and incorrect Amir (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zolo: Some time ago I have used this list, but now if is necessary I use the list in Gadget-autoEdit --ValterVB (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Mark vandalism as patrolled?

I often look through the recent unpatrolled changes to patrol them, and sometimes I find vandalism / test edits and revert them. In that case, should I mark the bad edits as patrolled, so that other people know they’ve been dealt with and they don’t clutter the recent changes? Or should they stay unpatrolled? --DSGalaktos (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@DSGalaktos: I suppose it's okay because rollbacks also mark reverted edits as patrolled. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Okay, thanks! --DSGalaktos (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@DSGalaktos: "Patrolled" means that it has been looked at and acted upon as necessary (think "required action" or "required inaction"), not that it is a (confirmed) good edit. If not a good edit, and not acted upon, then obviously, do not mark as patrolled.

We could do with a local page, something similar to s:en:Help:Patrolling. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, please mark as patrolled once no further attention is needed. --Haplology (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

	Good edit	Bad edit
Took action	patrolled Y	resolved, patrolled Y not resolved, not patrolled Y
Did nothing	patrolled Y	not patrolled Y

— billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Placing warning tags and messages

Is there any way to place a message warning other editors about some problem with some item?

For example, I found this and this:

Q5616006 (Template:Infobox television)
Q15331964 (Template:infobox television program)

and I would like to add some message saying that people should also look at the other item (if they are searching for a specific infobox) and that Wikidata editors should think about combining these items in the future. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(For those who may look at the edit history. I just want to explain that in this particular case I moved the Russian link to where it would be more useful. It's just that some other Wikipedias have two of practically the same infoboxes so there's no way to link them all from the same item.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would add a short note in the description, like in the description of after-name (Q4116295), although instead of "Please use ... ", maybe I'd write "Also note ... " depending on the situation. --Haplology (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added short notes. And here too:

Q11005223 ("Template:Infobox program (television and radio)") --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

3,727,770 items with zero statements (22.70% of all)

The number is taken from http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php

To me, this seems quite high. How could we go about reducing that? --- Jura 09:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The Game? /ℇsquilo 09:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that good? Doesn't that imply a lot of consolidation? Varlaam (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Random items without statements. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jura, I agree it's a lot. I've been working on the items without claims that link to the Dutch Wikipedia. I try to find subsets that I can easily update using a bot. I'm currently adding sport (P641) and that gives a lot of results. Other subsets that are quite easy to catch with a bot:

Wikimedia category (Q4167836) - Sitelinks starting with "Category:" (enwiki) or local variants.
Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) - Sitelinks starting with "List of " (enwiki) or local variants.
Wikimedia template (Q11266439) - Sitelinks starting with "Template:" (enwiki) or local variants.
Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)
Items that have been merged, but not redirected or deleted.

I also updated the items without claims that link to the English Wikipedia. This list dropped from 858.809 to 785.395 so people seem to be working on it. Multichill (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Multichill - the link you gave, goes to nl-data. Of what nature are the ~65 000 new claims? I think the most useful would be instanceOf or subClassOf. Vladimir Gribochev (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a wiki, and the items need to be created prior to population; and it all takes time. So the issue of items without statement should be noted, and it should be resolved, by it isn't a worry (yet), especially compared with the sum of human knowledge that hasn't even made it into WD to this point, or often into the WPs.

Part of the resolution needs to go back the other way and get some emphasis and ability to have statements added from the source wiki, which takes the gamification to the wiki, rather than separate it out as solely being part of WD data population. Imagine at the WP article that you could populate WD based on the categories, and the smart of targeting the information, and the article itself informing you that you can assist. Imagine from the infoboxes at present that we could identify that the data on the box is NOT on WD, or it differs, and being able to push it through, with the reference. [Remember more people visit articles, than visit WD]. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There is also this tool: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/important_blank_items.php - But what we really need in my opinion is more people that can run the pywikibot to gather some basic information from infoboxes. -Tobias1984 (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How about fixing the property instance of (P31) in every item (by database)?--Bigbossfarin (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Multichill:: Category, List, Template and disambiguation items are good to flag as such, but probably less important to Wikidata in terms of statements than others.

I like the nl "noclaims" list. Would you consider making one for fr and adding the categories in fr these articles are in? --- Jura 07:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

How about as a birthday present running a script for a week that mentions the birthday and invites people to update a label or description based on a week-long run of the script that shows the item label and description at the top of every Wikipedia page? I use this script all the time to update items, and when I see "no item found" I either create one or find the one it should be linked to. Jane023 (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Some responses from my side:

billinghurst: I don't see it as a problem, just some fun puzzle to work on and solve. Bots should be able to reduce the bulk so the next chunk can be done with game like systems.

Jura: I like to tag the basic types (category etc) so humans don't have to spend (waste) time on them.

The noclaims lists are lists of articles that have an item on Wikidata and that item doesn't have any links to another item. Items with just a string/coordinate claim will show up in the list too. I created these lists for quite a few languages including French. Correlation with categories is high on my lists, but the queries seem to be extremely slow if I do it directly. I would probably have to resort to a temporary table with items without links and JOIN the different Wikipedia's on that.

I wonder what percentage per wiki doesn't have claims. For nlwp it would be 60826 / 1.795.074 = 3,3% and for frwp it would be 212135 / 1.558.517 = 13,6 and enwp 785395 / 4,639,247 = 16,9%. Gives a nice idea on which Wikipedia's we should work. Multichill (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I just finished a script that analyzes first sentence of articles (English Wikipedia at first) and checks it against categories or infobox and if it is okay, it adds it. you will have a very low number very soon Amir (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What datatype for IRC channels?

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 72924

Does anybody else have an opinion about what the datatype for IRC channels should be? Can we save the whole address or does the channel have to be separate? Will the URL datatype even take channels? See: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#IRC -Tobias1984 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it should be URL. If that currently doesn't take irc:// then can you please open a bug so we can add it? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A channel is uniquely specified by its server address and name. It's a URL albeit not an http one.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Technically I would call an IRC channel a URN, not a URL, or if you do not know which it is, you can call it a URI, which includes both URLs and URNs. A URL is a location, a URN is a name. A channel is a name. 76.24.193.7 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You would have to agree re protocols, especially when some IRC channels can have several access points, eg. freenode's channels can be accessed by url, separate from the irc:// protocol; similarly certain IRC channels are ported through various providers. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My guess is that by "you", you meant "I"? 76.24.193.7 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): The bug is resolved. Do you know when it will be deployed/usable? Tobias1984 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Should be in a week or two. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks! -Tobias1984 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Tournament draws

Having started the discussion above in section Wikidata-Templates for Wikipedia, I wanted to start a new section with a more specific proposal that incorporates what I have learned in the previous discussion. I will split the various steps that I think need to be addressed, but please feel free to add further issues you see.

0. Background

In sports, we generally have lots of tournament draws that are part of the local WP articles. Coming from a tennis background, please allow me to use this as an example, but of course the possible use cases are beyond tennis and maybe beyond sports as well.

Such draws generally contain the same data for all local WPs, please see as an example the 2014 Wimbledon Championships Women's Singles draws:

Therefore, I see this as a perfect usecase for central data storage in WD, because at the moment all the various templates have to be filled manually for each country. A most of them are also structured in a similar way, we might find a way to use this data in the local templates.

Could someone run a data query to see how many tournament draws might be affected (starting with tennis) to see the scope/size of the idea?

1. Wikidata (WD) to save data points

Basically, the templates require the following data (I used the English one as the example, but you will find that most of the templates follow this structure):

RD1, RD2,... // Descriptions of the round, e.g. "First Round", "Second Round", "Semifinal", "Final", in my opinion, these still must be changeable in the local templates even though other data may come from Wikidata RD1-seed01=1 // Seed of Player1 RD1-team01=Template:Flagicon S Williams // Player1 and Flagicon. Can the Flagicon somehow be derived from the player nationality? Further, can the templates generally identify the winner of a match to print them in bold? Or do we need another statement for that? RD1-score01-1=6 //Score Player1 in first set. Can templates generally make up, who won the set? RD1-score01-2=6 //Score Player1 in the second set RD1-score01-3= // Score Player1 in the third set. Please note that Men's Matches or generally other sports may be played Bo5, Bo7 or generally something else than Bo3. RD1-seed02= //Now the information come for the second player. Please note that the player numbers are counted for all matches, i.e. the second match in this round would be between player 3 and 4 RD1-team02=Template:Flagicon A Tatishvili RD1-score02-1=1 RD1-score02-2=2 RD1-score02-3=

I am by no means a data or WD expert, so how can we store these data? I like the structure of <Round>-<Statement>-<Player#>, because that is something which in my head we could be mirroring 1:1 in WD, can we?

Question is, whether we can get the data out in a local WP template as needed? Which P..... would we have to create?

2. Bot to collect data on large scale

If we agreed whether the whole project is feasible, we should have a bot run through the local WPs (most likely the enWP has most of the data) to crawl the templates and enter the respective data into WD. Again, I am no expert, but I see the following challenges:

- I guess that we can derive the Q.... from the link to a player that is used in the local WP, but what if the local WP does not have an article for a player? There needs to be some manual work, but how would that look? - There should be a source for each of the draws in the respective articles, could we have this as the source for every single statement? - I guess a phased approach would be best to get the maximum amount of quality of the data points, so start with little amount of draws, before the bot really goes live. All in all, this should be a one-off task, because expectation is that we fill out the future draws directly in WD. - Most of the draws for larger Grand Slam tournaments are split into up to 8 sections. The bot would have to be able to recognise this and make a continous counting of the position of the match/players in each round, so that for example a field of 128 players split over 8 sections is not numbered form 1 to 16 for 8 times, but correctly numbered from 1 to 128 and then from 1 to 64 in the second round and so forth. Further, the final rounds for Grand Slam tournaments are also in a bespoke draw, so that would have to be taken into consideration as well. Probably best to have bots being able to differentiate between different field sizes. - The more I think about it, that could be the showstopper for the idea, because there are many different tournament draw templates out there, that we would have to take into consideration.

3. Templates to bring draws to local Wikipedias (WP)

With templates, I see the following issues: - Being able to tell a template to start at a specific player number and to go through to a further player number (e.g. the draw for section 2 in the examples shown above should feature players 9 to 16). - Being compatible with various language specifics, e.g. format of player names - Being able to identify the winner of a match to print out in bold letters - Being able to get something like a Flagicon from a Player Q...., probably via nationality?

4. Local WP involvement

Once we have discussed and see whether this is feasible or not, I would reach out to the local WPs to get their input. It is imporant that this is no must to use WD for them, but could be nice, especially if you try to keep a draw of a current tournament updated. Further, if this works out, it should be very easy to bring all these information to smaller WPs by just using a template.

5. Future development

Future developments I can see: - Instead of being entering the players and results manually into WD data base via the current interface, there should be a form looking like the draw template in which you can enter the data and which would give you a much better look and feel b/c you a) would instantly see what the result would look like abd b) you wouldn't get lost in potentially 128 player numbers, but would actually enter the data right into the draw. - Global templates, but Lydia already confirmed that this is currently not on the development map.

I know, it is a long read, but going step-by-step in my opinion is really important in such a potentially large scale project.

Looking for all of your input, because I just came up with the idea, but have no clue on how to make it happen...--Mad melone (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a great idea, as currently it's rather time consuming to add the 5 draws of a tennis grand slam to the Dutch wiki only. I can copy/paste most of the scheme, but not all, for example the templates with country flags need to be "translated", and especially on the Russian players there are differences in the spelling of names. This makes it a tedious job, four times a year (for four grand slams). And the same exercise for the French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc wiki's. If this could be consolidated into one schema in WikiData, that would be a true time saver, even if we have to create the WD-schema manually! Edoderoo (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea but very difficult to use. I have created thousand of tennis tournaments draws in it.wiki (you can see it). It's easy to "export" or "import" to or from an edition of wikipedia to another one if everybody used same templates, same conventions, same wikilinks...but if someone uses other parameters it's impossible to export or import. If we create an istance of a tournament in wikidata we must to fill it with thousand of parameters about the tennis players, the "flagicons", the results etc...This work must be done by a bot (or similar) and it isn't so simple. Some results about tennis tournaments are updated just after the end of a match or a set (in some cases). Who can update these results? I repeat, it's a brilliant idea, I hope to see a common global project about tennis results.--Matlab1985 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the information we are trying to encode here it looks to me like we need to make two statements for each set - one for each player:

Participant:Seles

Team icon:icon.jpg

Seed:4

Participant:Seles

Round:1

Set:1

Games won:7

Special note:won by a tiebrake game

Participant :Seles

Round:1

Set:2

Games won:4

Participant:Seles

Round:1

Set:3

Games won:3

Participant:Seles

Round:1

Ranking:1 (i.e. first place out of the two people in this match = won this round)

Opponent:King (Might be omitted if the template is smart enough to figure this out from the seeding)

and that is just half of one match! 63 more to go.

There is a lot to enter here but not that much more than for the Wikipedia templates and maybe someone smarter than me can figure a better way to do this (but I don't think so).

Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that some of these properties already exist: participant (P710), number of wins (P1355), but new properties will be needed for other properties. Filceolaire (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, it is highly appreciated. What about the following data structure:

Participant:Seles

Team icon:icon.jpg (I guess you mean to have the flag or some badge here - might it be possible to derive this from the Player Country? But for an overall data set, I agree.)

Seed:4

Participant:Seles

Round: 1

Tableau position : 1 (This is technical, but gives the order of each player in the draw, to be able to design the draw from the data, i.e. numbers 1 through 64 for a 64 person/team draw)

Ranking : 1 (Might be omitted, if the templates can figure that out by themselves)

Games won: 7 (5) qualifier = set1 (what about working with qualifiers? Can we actually make data queries facilitating qualifiers?)

Games won: 4 qualifier = set2

Games won: 3 qualifier = set3

Don't think that we need the opponent, as it doesn't really tell anything. Please note that I think it is extremely important to have a players position in the bracket in order to draw the brackets accordingly in the templates.

As mentioned above, I am not sure whether we can use qualifiers in templates, if we could that this would save us a lot of duplicate data entries. WHat do you and the others think? --Mad melone (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you cannot have a qualifier to a qualifier. 'Games won' is a qualifier to the 'participant' statement. If that 'Participant' statement has three 'Games won' qualifier and three 'set number' qualifiers then there is no way confirm which 'games won' is associated with which 'set number' qualifier since the order can get changed. The way round this is to have separate 'participant' statements for each set as my proposal or having special properties for 'games scored in set 1', 'games scored in set 2' etc. I can see that replacing the 'round' statement with a 'table position' is a good idea. I would suggest 'table positon:1' should be the winner with numbers increasing for earlier rounds so round 1 has the highest numbers. This way the table positions for the final rounds are the same whether there are four rounds or ten rounds (some football knockout tournaments have a lot of rounds). By the way I am not sure what 'games won:7 (5)' means. Is that 7 games or 5? Hope this helps. Filceolaire (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On the question of whether qualifiers can be used in templates; My understanding is that this can be done using Lua. Filceolaire (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for you continuing feedback. I see the flaws in my proposed data scheme, what about the following scheme:

Participant:Seles

Team icon:icon.jpg

Seed:4

Participant:Graf

Team icon:icon.jpg

Seed:1

Match

Round:3

Tableau position:2

Winner:Graf

Team1:Seles

Team2:Graf

ScoreTeam1Set1:6

ScoreTeam2Set1:4

ScoreTeam1Set2:2

ScoreTeam2Set2:6

ScoreTeam1Set3:6

ScoreTeam2Set3:7 (5)

However, I see that this has the disadvantage that in case of other Best of matches, eg Bo5, Bo7,... there would be a pair of data sets for each played sets already prepared as qualifiers. Would love to get as much input on this as possible, as the solution should be as flexible as possible to cover other sports draws than tennis as well.

As for your questions:

7 (5) means that someone one that set in the tiebreak and that the opponent scored 5 points. It's the standard way to denote tennis tie break results.
I guess I understand your idea, but don't know if that is really feasible, because in reality (=Wikipedia) the draws get split up a lot and might not always show the complete draw, therefore I am not sure if counting from the final backwards will help. What I am trying to do is a combination of the round and the position of the match in that round from top to bottom. Please see the example of the template that I included above as well as the Wimbledon draft I linked to - you will see that the templates all work that way.

Thanks again for helping me figuring it all out.--Mad melone (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Before this gets archived: Anyone with experience in new properties having any thoughts on how to structure the data? Would be highly appreciated. --Mad melone (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing multiple items

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 72019

I was trying to move half a dozen links from one item to another, and first got tripped up by just trying to delete them, you have to click "remove" instead. Then you have to keep clicking "save" for however many items, or more, that you are deleting. I stopped clicking too soon and had to go back and do it again with the last two items. Hopefully this will go away when the UI is changed. Feel free to add a bug if not. I shudder to think what this means if I had to move 50 or 100 links. 76.24.193.7 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is bugzilla:72019.--GZWDer (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Preferential popup property label as a qualifier?

For some qualifiers for a property there is preferential popup values. What is the process for getting new prerenctial popups added to a property, eg. for VIAF ID (P214) I would like to see retrieved (P813) popup as a hint. Thx — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They are shown based on what is in use in other items. So if you add those to a number of other items as a qualifier it'll show up with time. (We need to update the data that makes the suggestions again.) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata wins Open Data Award in the category Publisher

Hey everyone,

Wooooow! We won the Open Data Award in the category Publisher by the Open Data Institute last night! \o/ This is incredible. I am so happy to see this recognition of all the work we've put into Wikidata together. Magnus and I had a blast at the award ceremony yesterday night. Here's a picture of us on stage with Sir Nigel Shadbolt and Sir Tim Berners-Lee: https://twitter.com/opencorporates/status/529721444549550080 Here's Wikidata written in huge letters above the heads of the audience: https://twitter.com/marin_dim/status/529721419580854272 And here is Magnus and me with the price: https://twitter.com/wikidata/status/529723778558083074 I am delighted that they especially recognized the breath of topics Wikidata covers and that it has been developed in the open since the beginning. This award is for everyone in this community. We should be proud! This is a perfect start into year 3 of Wikidata :)

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Wikidata. :) --Succu (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Epìdosis 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the staff and users :) --ValterVB (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, Wikidata! Bennylin (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE), Magnus Manske: Pic added (more in the set it came from, on Flickr). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats, Wikidata! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 21:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. But I can't find a source for this statement: (https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q13520818&diff=170753096&oldid=164242074). Was the prize given to both Wikidata and Magnus or is this just a mistake? -Tobias1984 (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It was given to Wikidata as a project. Magnus and I were just there to take it. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the statement. In my opinion a nice solution, if we want to express this, is Magnus Manske (Q13520818) = P(has represented) = Wikidata (Q2013) with Qualifier P766 (P766) = Open Data Award (Q18503067) (or Open Data Award Ceremony 2014). -Tobias1984 (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

English link from German Galvanoplastik

In the German Wikipedia page Galvanoplastik, the list of other languages has the "Links bearbeiten" to the Wikidata page galvanoplasty (Q15031376). The list of other languages also includes a link to the English Wikipedia page Electrotyping. On the English Wikipedia page, the list of other languages has the "Edit links" to a different Wikidata page electrotyping (Q6456484). (Confusingly, this is also called "electrotyping" in English.) Does the list of other language links on the German Galvanoplastik come from Wikidata item galvanoplasty (Q15031376)? If yes, then how does it include a link to the English Wikipedia when galvanoplasty (Q15031376) doesn't have an English link? Thanks, Jefft0 (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Both enwiki and dewiki contain local interwiki links. These always override and add to the links coming from Wikidata. it would be good to clean them up - the bots probably skipped it because of the links between the two different topics that were overlapping, and deferred this to human intelligence - maybe you? ;) --Denny (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Zero error rate

Is this goal too ambitious? I think no. We use constraint checks to control our data quality now. Its allows to find vandalized items, incorrect edits, incomplete data and etc. The major problem of this mechanism is extremely high total violations count: 6416955. Monitoring for vandalized items and new errors is difficult in this situation. Quality degradation present often. To prevent this I try to divide all constraints into two categories:

good constraints without violations and conflicts. Lets name its "mandatory".
all other constraints. Lets name its "in progress"

I created special reports for mandatory constraints: summary, violations, candidates. Now way to zero error rate is looked more concrete and contains the next activities:

Every day cleanup of mandatory constraints violations list. This task is not difficult. One-two humans are enough usually. This prevent loosing already achieved positions.
Fixing violations of "in progress" constraints and marking its as "mandatory". Important thing: only zero violations count constraint can be transferred to "mandatory" group. This extends "error free" zone.

These activities are not enough to clean our data from all possible errors of course. But this is good and consistent start on way to high data quality. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ivan, I've been playing around with these reports for quite some time. I like the mandatory feature to keep things on a certain level. The total of number of violations is now 6416955, but what would it be if you remove the duplicates? Or if you look at the number of unique items affected by these contraint violations? I'm asking because often one edit can fix multiple constraint violations. Maybe it's a good idea to make a list of top offenders too? That would be the inverse of the candidates. Multichill (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

One item can violate multiple constraints, but not many (exception is items in class hierarchy for {{Constraint:Type}}). I think per-item analysis is not very efficient because we have too many items. Per-property work is more realistic especially for botmasters. This table can be used as inverse to the candidates in a way. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ivan for these lists. I really like this split of the reports into two categories. The top offenders are most often related to missing or wrong P132 (P132) values which causes 2,504,067 violations. --Pasleim (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes there are exceptions to a constraint. How do we identify these exceptions so they are not picked up in the constraints report? Filceolaire (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions can be listed on property talk page, example: Property talk:P227. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lists. As a newbie, albeit a newbie with 700k edits, but apparently still a newbie nonetheless, I find the list of constraints violations difficult to understand. I have to follow multiple links to get to the section of violations in question, and the only information on what the constraint means or how to fix it is on the talk page, which is also very difficult for me to understand. I'm currently puzzling over what to do with Petra Roth (Q61249), who violates position held (P39) because Petra's "position"s include several elections. I found another property which might be more appropriate, but I just lost it in the forest of tabs that I've had to open up thus far, but even if I find it again, how do I know if I should use it? This is just an example of the daunting experience that faces anyone trying to tackle constraint violations. I think we need most of all to communicate better to newbies like me what the violations mean and how to fix them. More hand holding, please! --Haplology (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I don´t think that is a question of being a newbie or not. It is just difficult. I have looked into P39 and I think the problem is the qualifier p6. As far as I understand, the qualifier wanted to say, that she worked in Frankfurt (she was elected! in Frankfurt) and I think, it is the wrong property. I guess, ~~P263 (official residence), p1134 (located in place)~~ p768 (electoral district) would be the right one. My third guess! What is wrong with p166? I haven´t found the problem. Maybe someone else found the problem already? By the way, Wikidata:Constraint violation report input asks for proposals to improve this system. It started a month ago, maybe it is to old, but I added my own proposal at the bottom. Is it worth to start a WD:rfc? --Molarus 07:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Haplology, Molarus: There are two ways around this.

1. Use the qualifier 'of (P642)' to say she is Lord Mayor (Q11902879):of (P642):Frankfurt (Q1794) or

2. Instead of Lord Mayor (Q11902879) say the position she held is list of mayors of Frankfurt (Q316441) only change the label of that item to "mayor of Frankfurt"; after all that item does describe the class of mayors of Frankfurt.

Option 2. means that in future you can use the set of people who link to this item to reconstruct this list with a query.Filceolaire (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn´t saw it, because it isn´t listed at a subpage of Wikidata:List of properties. At least there is no Wikilink in the Wikidata namespace. Maybe there are more unlisted properties? --Molarus 05:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Exceptions should probably be stored as qualifiers on the constraint as soon as we have statements on properties. That's progressing nicely now. I think we'll have it within a month. Also the students started evaluating all the input they got for improving the system and are currently planning their work. Will update you as we progress. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean a statement on the page Property:P...? --Molarus 05:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sequences

Some statements reflects a sequence of something (a resource), but it is not possible to use anything like a rdf:seq so all statements used in a sequence must be sortable on something else to turn them into a valid sequence. I think that would imply that the sequence must be sortable on the qualifier. I think it also imply that the main snak should be different among the resources in the sorted sequence, but that would be difficult given the present Wikibase system. So basically we are stuck with a sequence of statements using the same type of main snak. That is everything we want to handle as a set must be using the same type of statement in an item.

The implication is that a child would not be a member of a sequence children but will be sortable among other child if given a qualifier birth date. It will not be possible to have some named child and another child that is identified by a reference to an item. Unless given as a reference to an item it is not possible to distinguish a member of a sortable set from an updated statement. That imply that all members of sets must be items, and they must have qualifiers on their references.

Another example would be modeling a bibliography for an author, or mayors for municipalities.

Is this a correct understanding of the present system? Jeblad (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Improving ordering is on our near-term todo since it has quite a few nasty bugs. But yes this is what is possible with Wikibase. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not about visually reordering statements, that is how I interpret the present bugs, it is about semantically ordered sequences. Said an other way, it is about the meaning of the things you are ordering and how that order is expressed in the rdf. As the model is now (at least as I recollect it) there is no containers or collections in Wikibase, that is rdf:bag, rdf:seq, or rdf:alt. [6] [7] Jeblad (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In short; the model as it is now can not handle reference to multiple values, only updates to a single value, without use of additional qualifiers, but the interpretation of those qualifiers are left open. That is sufficient for modeling the behavior for the infoboxes in Wikipedia, but not sufficient for modeling real world entities. Jeblad (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation of those qualifiers are left to the re-user, yes. Just like the interpretation of any property is left to them for example. There is no difference between them in that regard. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Constraint violation report flooded

I have Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P496 watchlisted, so that I am altered about (and can fix) any invalid ORCID iD (P496) identifiers that are added to the database. I have kept such errors to zero

Someone has modified that report so that it now lists people who have an ORCID identifier, but no entry for their sex or gender (P21), place of birth (P19) or date of birth (P569). I can't fix any of these, because I can't source the necessary data. Is some cases, where the data is unknown, the person may appear in the report in perpetuity. Is it necessary, and useful, to include such issues? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs).

@Pigsonthewing: This is because {{Constraint:Person}} that was on that property talk page recently became active. It is true that ORCID iD (P496) only applies to human (Q5) and this constraint belongs to report P496. I agree that violations on sex or gender (P21), place of birth (P19) or date of birth (P569) do not belong to that violation report, but we have no other place to simply list the set of human (Q5) missing these informations. Possibly Ivan can do something to group "person" violations in one location, rather than repeating them in so many reports @Ivan A. Krestinin:. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 18:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

sex or gender (P21) and instance of (P31)=human (Q5) usually is not a problem. place of birth (P19) and date of birth (P569) is more problematic. Many technical ways can be used:

remove {{Constraint:Item|property=P569}} and {{Constraint:Item|property=P19}}, the items can be found using AutoList if needed.
add date of birth (P569) = somevalue
add date of birth (P569) = 20 century
add the items to exceptions

I think usage constraints like {{Constraint:Item|property=P569}}, {{Constraint:Item|property=P19}} must be variable depend on situation. Some user want to fix the violations — add the constraint. He win the constraint — great thank. The constraints flood report and nobody work with its — remove its. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Iona and Peter Opie (Q3154114)

Iona and Peter Opie (Q3154114) doesn't have any 'edit' tags for me. Other items have all the usual 'edit' tags but they are all missing from this item. Filceolaire (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I purged the item and that seems to have fixed it for me. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

using 'based on' (P144) to list the libraries or frameworks a software is based on

I was about to add the following statements:

Popcorn Time is Based on Node.js
Popcorn Time is Based on Backbone.js
etc.

Usually, P144 seems to be used as 'this movie' is 'based on' 'this book', but while in this context the two entities are more tightly related, softwares based on other softwares also have comparable bonds, haven't they? What do you think, would that make sense to use this property in this context? Or is there just an other property for that that I missed?

thanks in advance

Zorglub27 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zorglub27: It looks like the current usage of P144 includes software. My favorite claim is that dystopia (Q180774) is based on utopia (Q131156). I suppose that judge something as bad, you have to have some ideal of what is good. Who says that data has no relevance to the humanities? :) --Haplology (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Haplology: so I will try that :) great claim indeed ^^ Zorglub27 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Next IRC office hours

Hey :) I'll be doing 2 office hours soon. The first one will be about structured multimedia data on Nov 20th. The second one will be for all things Wikidata on Dec 3rd. More details are on the office hours page. Hope to see many of you there. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Empty items

User:분당선M/DB/empty items has 1687 items that didn't have sitelinks or statement. if you interest to delete or redirect to correct item, please visit it. however, you should check the links to that item also.--DangSunM (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to overlap with a lot with User:Multichill/To redirect. That list is more restricted and bots are already processing that. (@GZWDer: @Matěj Suchánek: time for another run or maybe more regular runs). Multichill (talk) 06:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyways still needs to redirect and delete.--DangSunM (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Preparing for "statements on properties"

I am a bit concerned with the upcoming deployment of statements on properties; after checking Wikidata:Property_proposal/Pending/4#Metadata properties and Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/10#Property_Metadata, I think we need to clarify some aspects of this new metadata structure:

Some of the properties that were proposed so far are somewhat cryptic or sketchy. I added a dedicated proposal page, Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata, in order to structure and clarify future discussions on these properties;
Some of the key attributes proposed require datatypes that do not exist yet:
- Subproperty and Subject item require a "Property" datatype; other statements like "mandatory qualifiers" would also need it;
- Domain could make good use of a "query" datatype (simple queries?);
- Property usage requires multi-lingual text.

It seems to me that only few statements can readily be applied to properties, in the current state of things. I would appreciate feedback on proposed statements and possible alternatives to work around those limitations; also, does anyone know how we can use a P-item as value in a statement (some kind of "property datatype") ? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 05:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The most important property restrictions are rdfs:range and rdfs:domain, and use of them imply proper implementation of rdf:type (and thereby also rdfs:Class, rdfs:subClassOf, and rdfs:Property and rdfs:subPropertyOf).[8] (Edit: Both rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf probably imply mw:Wikibase/DataModel#SubclassOfSnak.) Those should be available somehow, and the restrictions should at least impose a warning if they are not enforced. Note that use of them imply transitive properties. Because they will create a lot of errors there must either be some maintenance pages to weed out all the errors, or some report pages where bots can add their findings (see #Zero error rate). Jeblad (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

All this is Chinese to me... Please simplify. You mention "range", "domain", "type", "Class", "subClassOf", "Property" and "subPropertyOf". Concretely, there are plans to create Subproperty and Domain. Are these sufficient? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

That is in fact the problem, the statements (and the properties we are using to formulate them) are not grounded in external common concepts from semantic data, they are simple word phrases that align with similar phrases used for template parameters in Wikipedia. Jeblad (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Laddo, if Semantic Web concepts like "range", "domain", "type", "Class", "subClassOf", "Property" and "subPropertyOf" are Chinese to you, I highly recommend reading:

http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

The OWL 2 Primer explains those basic Semantic Web concepts. Once you've read that, use http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_properties as a reference for the definitions of "range", "domain", etc.

rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf are probably not very relevant for statements on properties. Range, domain and subproperty of are exceedingly relevant. There are several more pieces of vocabulary relevant for statements on properties -- e.g. inverse of (owl:inverseOf) -- but I recommend understanding the basic properties first. Familiarity with them is essential for anyone discussing statements on properties. Emw (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

There is also a fine difference between a property used in a statement and in a qualifier, the last is also a statement but in Wikidata-lingo it is called a qualifier, but it is not clear to me how this difference can (or will) be encoded. Can a property be given a rdfs:domain of wd:Qualifier, which would then be a subclass of rdf:Statement? Note that this imply implementation of mw:Wikibase/DataModel#SubclassOfSnak. Jeblad (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Properties used as qualifiers are pretty clear to me: they constitute statements that characterize the relationship between two entities, rather than the entity itself. Is there a need for more formal distinctions? -- LaddΩ chat ;) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Laddo. Thanks for starting this discussion. You raise a very good point with being able to use properties as a value in a statement. I filed bugzilla:73302 for that. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Some more proposals added to Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata. Filceolaire (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding rang and domain as ordinary properties are going to be very ... messy/fuzzy, I think this needs some careful consideration. Those are core constraints that should be part of the data model itself. Some of the problem, I think, is that the present statements are not grounded, they are sort of detached from the definitions the rest of the semantic web are using. For example, we have an instance of (P31) but not a rdfs:type which we should have, and the P31 does not identify itself as an alias for rdfs:type. Jeblad (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeblad, if you review any significant discussion of instance of (P31) within the last year and a half, you will see it is described as an alias of rdf:type. (Note: there is no rdfs:type.) See e.g. Property_talk:P31#is_a_-.3E_instance_of, Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Primary_sorting_property#c.29_Wikidata_should_not_have_a_primary_sorting_property_at_all, etc. And note how P31 is replaced by rdf:type in the Wikidata RDF export as described in Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web, largely based on those linked community discussions. Also, if you look on the property page for P31, you'll see it actually has the alias "rdf:type", and the property talk page sets "rdf:type" as the property's "Source". This mapping has been a foundation of many, many hours of interminable discussion about ontological modeling on Wikidata. P31 has the semantics of rdf:type.

Range and domain are indeed not "ordinary" properties. They don't go on items; they are properties of properties. I agree with you that the way they are used in present statements -- that is, in Template:Property_documentation -- is unfortunately detached from how the rest of the Semantic Web uses them. While we are in the business of linking data, the Wikidata community as a whole is ironically rather parochial with regard to adopting standard vocabulary of the Semantic Web. It's a big field with lots to learn.

The biggest impediment I foresee with range and domain (i.e. rdfs:range and rdfs:domain) in particular is that they are not "constraints" in the way most software developers are familiar with. Most people work with systems that operate under a Closed World Assumption (CWA), but the Semantic Web -- specifically, OWL -- operates under an Open World Assumption (OWA). Thus, when we state "occupation domain person", we are stating not that any item which is not an instance of person is invalid as a subject of occupation, but rather that any item which is the subject of occupation is an instance of person. Towards Integrity Constraints in OWL discusses this further.

Another detail worth noting is that -- being mapped to rdf:type and rdfs:subClassOf as they are -- instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) are not valid subjects for subproperty of (i.e. rdfs:subpropertyOf) in OWL 2 DL, the reference ontology language of the Semantic Web. We can achieve similar expressiveness through class expressions, but a Wikidata implementation of that is likely much further off than simple statements on properties. Emw (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I am familiar with most of them. I am not talking about verbal prose but machine readable information, and while there is a lot of prose about properties in Wikidata it is not possible to reuse much of it. Any description of properties (or items) that exist on talk pages simply do not exist when you want to reuse data from Wikidata. Our grounding of the model relies on prose that is not machine readable.

On open world assumption; a constraint does not by itself express that something is invalid, it express that something is valid given some interpretation of the constraint. Jeblad (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeblad, the 'Source' field in the property documentation is nominally machine-readable (and links P31 and P279 to their respective W3C properties), but I agree we need something better. For properties of properties, I imagine most will have the semantics of their RDF, RDFS and OWL namesakes.

Like P31 and P279, it would be best to indicate that those properties of properties should be replaced with their W3C namesake in any RDF export. For example, the RDF export should not include a declaration defining the property "domain" like it would for the property "occupation" -- it should simply bulk-replace usages of "domain" with rdfs:domain and strip of any qualifiers, etc. This is what Markus Kroetzsch et al. do with P31 and P279 in the RDF export. Ideally these properties of properties would be implemented in Wikibase, but this kludge seems like the best available option barring that.

I agree with your statement about the Open World Assumption. Increasing awareness of that unintuitive meaning of "constraint" among the Wikidata community will be necessary if we want to use domain, range, etc. in standards-compliant ways. Emw (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

False friend "pamphlet"

Q190399 neads some clean-up. The interwikis link to various Wikipedia language versions with articles about a topic called "pamphlet", but this doesn't mean the same thing in all languages. In English, a pamphlet is "an unbound booklet", describing a certain form of publication regardless of the content. In German, a "Pamphlet" is a "Schmähschrift" which means a lampoon or pasquil. So, the Wikipedia article de:Pamphlet is about a particular kind of content: "eine Schrift, in der sich jemand engagiert, überspitzt und polemisch zu einem wissenschaftlichen, religiösen oder politischen Thema äußert" - a text in which someone makes remarks regarding a scientific, religious or political issue in a dedicated, exaggerated and polemical manner. When browsing through the interwikis, some languages seem to have the "English meaning" for "pamphlet" (a booklet) and some the "German meaning" (a polemical lampoon). For example, Spanish es:Panfleto says "un escrito o libelo breve generalmente agresivo o difamatorio" (aggressive and defamatory, I believe). As it's made clear by en:pamphlet, the English meaning of "pamphlet" isn't limited to booklets of an "aggressive and defamatory" nature. Norwegian no:Pamflett on the other hand seems to describe the same thing as en-WP, for example. - I'm not very experienced with Wikidata. Is someone able to divide Q190399 into two, an item for a booklet and an item for an aggressive lampoon? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess, if you know the two meanings, just create a new item, and correct the statements of both items, and move (I guess remove and add) links to their correct (new) item. Maybe write here and/or at the talk page of Q190399 about which language links you are unclear. Better answers? --Diwas (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a look on en:WP for an item dealing with polemical lampoons. en:Pamphlet does include a discussion of this meaning (a disputatious tract). en:Broadside (printing), and en:Street literature don't quite match. I think a new item will be needed. Filceolaire (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting task and I tried to sort out the "pamphlet" interwikis with the help of Google Translate, that's my result:

Form of publication / booklet	Literary genre / polemical lampoon
dawiki	be_x_oldwiki
enwiki (also mentions other meaning)	bgwiki
huwiki (?)	cawiki
idwiki	cswiki
jawiki	cywiki (also discusses other meaning)
kowiki	dewiki
newiki (?)	eswiki (explicitly states that it shouldn't be confused with English "pamphlet")
nowiki (also mentions differing meanings in other languages)	euwiki
ptwiki (also mentions other meaning under "Etimologia")	fiwiki (unclear: introduction defines it as a controversial publication, but main section follows the English definition)
simplewiki	frwiki (also discusses English meaning which apparently is prevalent in Québec)
zhwiki	hrwiki
	hywiki
	iowiki
	itwiki
	kawiki
	kkwiki
	lbwiki
	liwiki
	ltwiki
	nlwiki (focus a bit different, but calls the English meaning in Dutch an "anglicism")
	plwiki
	rowiki
	ruwiki
	shwiki (mentions English etymology)
	skwiki
	srwiki
	svwiki (doubts)
	tawiki
	ukwiki
	uzwiki (?)

As the majority of wikis seem to have the "literary genre / polemical lampoon" meaning, maybe we should create a new item for the "English" meaning? Gestumblindi (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding svwiki, the explanation in the article does not exclude any of these two options, it's about both. Another wordbook tells me the same thing. I would describe the Swedish pamflett as an Intersection between booklet and polemical lampoon rather than a Union as long as you not take the my words to literally. Words can be used in more ways than a wordbook tells. I have heard the word being used about short speeches for example. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This can be split if there are two articles in the same language wiki, one that wants to be in the pamphlet item, one in the lampoon item. Until then I am not sure there is any harm in keeping them all in one item. 76.24.193.7 09:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

But it is difficult to get the right statements, if users of several languages add contradictory statements. If we accept more than one meaning of one item, we need a way to show the specific statements splitted in one item. And every user must see this immediately. --Diwas (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I was made aware of the issue through complaints in the German-language Wikipedia - some people there were irritated by the fact that the interwikilink to en points to an article describing a different topic and wanted the link removed. Q190399 is defined as an "unbound booklet containing text" which simply isn't what the German or Spanish (etc.) articles are about. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have gone ahead and tried to separate "pamphlet" into two items: I left the "old" Q190399 with its definition "unbound booklet containing text" and created the new Q18536349 with definition "Polemical lampoon, text of an exaggerated and polemical manner", split the interwiki links between these two items as good as I could (opted for the new item for svwiki and uzwiki). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Firefox problem

I am unable to add or edit interwiki links using Firefox for the last two days. Opera, Chrome and IE are OK.--Kanags (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Does it help if you clear your cache on Firefox? --Stryn (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearing cache works fine. Thanks.--Kanags (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Need to merge 2 "Consensus" items

Q188577 and Q202722 seem to be all related to Consensus decision-making, at least in languages I read (English, Polish, and simple English), but they belong to different Q-codes. German and Spanish wikipedias seem to have both versions of the article so someone that can read one of those should try to differentiate them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

hewiki, hrwiki, idwiki, itwiki, jawiki, ruwiki, and yiwiki also know about both. it:Consensus (diritto) IMHO should move out of consensus (Q202722) - it is not even mentioned in it:Consenso which - being a disambiguation page - I just merged into Consensus (Q5162835). For dewiki I cannot see any way to solve the problem, the different Q-objects correspond exactly to the topics of the articles. -- Gymel (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence

Hello, as you know, currently it is not possible to link one Wikipedia article to multiple Wikidata items. A change of this policy has been requested to handle different concepts sharing one article in a given language. I would like to reopen the previous discussion on this issue. In my eyes, the solution proposed there by Thayts is the best, but it has not been discussed. What is the current status of this issue? Petr Matas (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC). Update: Petr Matas (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is an important question, see #Merge of President of the Maldives (Q1064606) and Liste der Staatsoberhäupter der Malediven (Q15272120), #False friend "pamphlet", #Different article types in one Wikidata item, #combined interwikilink list, #Item Left (Q3556716) for disambiguation pages, #Should all occupations be separate items from their skills?, #How to deal with translations of creative works? ... --Diwas (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this solution proposed by Thayts is a good way, especially the articles have explanations about the meanings in other languages:

`Q48282`		`Q48942`
`enwiki`	`en:Student`	`enwiki`	`Q48282->enwiki`
`dewiki`	`de:Student`	`dewiki`	`de:Schüler`

but you can't add all statements that matches de:student, since they don't match en:student. Maybe the following is better if e.g. one word in en: means two words in de:

`Q123456789`		`Q48282`		`Q48942`
`only pupils going to school (usually first 12 school years)`		`all students, all years, all school types incl. universities`		`only students of universities`		`the sitelink may look`
`enwiki`	`Q48282->enwiki`	`enwiki`	`en:Student`	`enwiki`	`Q48282->enwiki`	`English`
`dewiki`	`de:Student`	`dewiki`	`48942,123456789->dewiki`	`dewiki`	`de:Schüler`	`Deutsch 1 2`

But this needs handling of two links in one article. --Diwas (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Suppose we have a system with two links to the same wiki in one item, what should happen if someone is reading the English article "Student" and then clicks in the language bar on "Deutsch"?--Pasleim (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing, he has to click the 1 or the 2. The mouseover may help him. Try the last cell (right, bottom) of the table: Deutsch 1 2 --Diwas (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sitelinks with fragments and I think the RFQ is doable. It is also close to what is described in Wikidata:Requests for comment/One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence#Allowing use of anchored interwiki sitelinks. It has some negative side effects, not sure if it is possible to counteract those, but the present system also has negative side effects. Limiting URIs with hashes to valid fragments could be a way to minimize errors (that is the most serious side effect), but that would be counterintuitive for lists on Wikipedia. Perhaps a warning is sufficient when someone add a hash that has no valid fragment in the document, and that edits on Wikipedia that changes a valid fragment can update any URI with a hash that link to this fragment. Note that checking that a hash is a valid fragment is a heavy operation. Jeblad (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by heavy operation? Is it feasible that this feature can be developed? --Pasleim (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that this is a very bad idea. It's breaking important assumptions we're making about the world and will take significant development time to work around for questionable benefit. I know there is a group of people who want it but I am convinced it is not the right thing to do for Wikidata. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lydia! I totally agree with you. One-to-many relationships are for Wikipedia blue links to take care of, not Wikidata. Jane023 (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this can be labeled "a very bad idea" as the real world scenario is a many-to-many relationship, not a one-to-one relationship. The one-to-one relationship is a simplification we did when this was implemented. A page in the repo should be able to hold multiple items, and the external page can describe multiple entities. The present implementation is a shortcut and should be fixed. Jeblad (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Modelling is _always_ a simplification. We have to make certain cuts just like anyone else modelling the world. We decided to make those cuts there. That will obviously restrict us in certain ways. But that is something we have to do many many times in order to me able to actually do a model that is reasonably usable for the use-cases we have even if not powerful enough to model the world 1:1. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think the same as Jane023, In WIkidata we create the "brick" in Wikipedia we create the "wall" with Wikidata "brick". Naturally is necessary to have arbitrary access @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE):

--ValterVB (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Totally! :) We're making good progress on usage tracking. That's the biggest necessary groundwork part of arbitrary access. Will still take more work for arbitrary access then but we're making steady progress it seems \o/ --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem to solve is that when you are reading de:Schüler, you won't know how to find anything similar in other languages, because there are only 21 sitelinks in Q48942. There are 66 sitelinks in Q48282, which is very similar. However, you will not know, that in de:Schüler you have to follow a Student blue link to find those 66 sitelinks. This could be solved with a property, let's call it "Similar to":

Q48282		Q48942
Similar to (P123456789)	Q48942	Similar to (P123456789)	Q48282
enwiki	en:Student	enwiki
dewiki	de:Student	dewiki	de:Schüler

Then, Wikipedia could get the missing sitelinks from (possibly multiple) similar items and (optionally) format them differently to suggest that it is not an exact corresponence.

The idea could be extended to note the order of preference of the similar items or which of the similar items is prefered for a specific target language. Petr Matas (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The properties subclass of (P279) or said to be the same as (P460) can help to link the items. --Infovarius (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Also property part of (P361). Example: First Battle of Donetsk Airport (Q17001322) is part of (P361) Battle of Donetsk Airport (Q18536369). But I think that we need a new property, because use of these would often lead to unexpected results. Petr Matas (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Abuse filter or Revert bot

We need an abuse filter or revert bot for case which are

P107person (Q215627)
P107human (Q5)
stated in (P248) > local wikipedia --> the property should be imported from Wikimedia project (P143)
Values listed in {{Constraint:Conflicts with}} on Property talk:P21 should not get human property
if instance of (P31)human (Q5) not sex or gender (P21)male organism (Q44148) or sex or gender (P21)female organism (Q43445)
Duplicated claim for a property
not date of birth (P569) > today or date of death (P570) > today
also please add other similar cases to have a ToDo cleaning list for bots or abus filter

Now bots and users add these case and we should fix it by getting query or using autolist! we should have documentation and alarm template for these casesYamaha5 (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5: Opinion on having filters:

Special:AbuseFilter/28
dtto
possible but we ~~should~~ must have a list of all these Qs
dtto (if the list isn't long)
Special:AbuseFilter/13
possible but may be slow
possible but if you wanted to be very accurate, you would have to edit the filter each day / maybe the most suitable configuration would be for dates after 2014-12-31

Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek:

for number 3 we need too check if the target's Q in lang=English finished with wikipedia

for number 4 they are 36 Qs we can have abus filter for most popularYamaha5 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5: Sorry but AbuseFilter cannot work with labels of other items, it can only check an individual action. So the filter really needs the Q numbers.

If you think the filters would be useful, I will create and test them all. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

By sure abuse filter will be useful and it's log can be useful for bots. for wikipedias we can add 30 most used wikis to abuse filter

also label and target of lang links should add to abuse filter's argumentsYamaha5 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

local wikipedias are listed here Yamaha5 (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've created Special:AbuseFilter/53, Special:AbuseFilter/54 and Special:AbuseFilter/56 according to your suggestions and Special:AbuseFilter/55 for dates > 2014. Any more suggestions? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Thanks very much for these new filters! Could you please clarify the definition of Special:AbuseFilter/54: replace "Wrong property for an "imported from" claim" by ==> "Wrong value for a "stated in" claim". -- LaddΩ chat ;) 17:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Special:AbuseFilter/history/54/diff/prev/662. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: Thank youYamaha5 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that 7 can be perfectly correct for fictional persons. /ℇsquilo 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Aren't these better dealt with via constraint reports? Filceolaire (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, concerning #3, I used stated in (P248) when I add a value from reading the article, while imported from Wikimedia project (P143) was, I thought, for values automatically imported by bots (which implies no copist-error, contrary to manual adding)… this should be made more obvious to contributors :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

History of film

The German National Library has has announced that it will import about 140,000 new authority records about film actors, directors etc. this Saturday. The GND ID (P227) can be looked up @OGND. --Kolja21 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually it was announced as being their plan for November 22, not yesterday. -- Gymel (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Reordering Statements wiki-style (non-js)

Is there any way to reorder (a lot of) statements easily (not one-by-one), either using wiki-style, or some kind of form? I tried to turn of the javascript on my browser, but then the page won't let me edit statements. Thanks. Bennylin (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also how to add many statements wiki-style? Bennylin (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that's not possible at the moment. Sorry. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks Lydia. Bennylin (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) - what is the current sort order? Is it documented somewhere? If there is none, one could have the statements

sorted descending by "number of occurrences of properties in statements", where "statements" refers to all statements related to a Q in the site, where site here means WikiData. According to Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties that would show "instance of" first. In case a description is missing, or even the label, the reader has already any idea what the nature of the Q is.
grouped by data type of the values. In WikiData that would mean all IDs like ISNI, GeoNamesID etc. would be grouped, since they are strings.

Andrea Shan (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrea, there is currently no established sort order. I would support grouping all of the identifier properties like ISNI, GeoNames ID, etc. Such identifiers are not meaningful in themselves, and should probably be shown at the bottom of the list of statements.

I am less keen on ordering the remaining statements in any given item by their overall popularity. A more meaningful, intuitive ordering would be better. My initial impression is that the two "is a" properties -- instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279) -- should be at the top. When an item has both instance of and subclass of statements, subclass of would be above instance of, because the former has more information than the latter. It's more interesting to know that a Corvette is a subclass of sports car than that it's an instance of car model; that a mouse is a subclass of mammal than that it's an instance of taxon; etc.

Beyond that, different communities of interest would presumably order properties in their domain as they decide. Certain generic properties are shared across domains, e.g. "cause" properties, should be grouped together, though their order relative to other properties groups may differ from domain to domain. Emw (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Emw - If there is no order, then it should be very easy to implement the option for sorting by data type in WikiBase. It should also be easy to sort by number of occurrences within each group - or if there is no grouping yet, of all statements. Cheap to implement, with large benefits. You mentioned subClassOf and instanceOf and want them at the top. That is not something that can be coded directly into WikiBase, since other installations may work with different properties. But instanceOf is at the top with my proposal anyway. Why subClassOf is not higher within Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties looks strange. A cause might be that the taxon tree is not integrated. But if that is wanted, then maybe WikiData-community thinks subClassOf is not that important. I would prefer WikiBase does not override that decision. My proposal is only for a very generic solution. Further things may take very long to be implemented. Mine is very, very easy. Andrea Shan (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrea, subclass of occurs fewer times than instance of simply because Wikidata has many more instances than classes, not because it is deemed less important per se. See Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web and the Wikidata RDF exports to get an impression of the special handling given to subclass of (P279) and its resulting taxonomy, even though they are not baked into Wikibase.

I don't think statement sort ordering should be coded into Wikibase. Wikidata developers have more important things to do, and sort ordering could be done via a bot written and run by a community member, and having it run as a bot would likely grant more flexibility.

Putting subclass of up top wouldn't be any more difficult than your proposal. The proposed ordering would require a list, likely a static one, pulled from Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties. Simply move subclass of to the top. This would certainly be easier than grouping identifier properties like ISNI and GeoNames together (which I think is a great idea). Emw (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Emw - You misstate what I wrote. Read again what I wrote with respect to the ranking of subClassOf, do you see that I didn't spoke about a surprise that subClassOf is lower than instanceOf in "popularity"? Regarding "would require a list" - this might be true, but that does not mean there needs to be a list in the form of a wiki page. It could be generated on page creation instead, or if there are performance issues, each property could have a "count of usage" field in the database. Then something like "Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties" could be part of any WikiBase, reachable via Special:<somename>. Very easy. Also the grouping of ISNI and GeoNameId etc are very easy - they are strings. If the modeling is well done, then one can have easy groupings very fast. A string for CommonsCategory is not a sign of good modeling, but coding around that is not worth the benefit. Coding resources are scarce, that is why I aim for a very, very easy solution. Andrea Shan (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We will be separating out identifiers as part of the UI redesign. As for ordering by occurrence: I don't think that would give us any meaningful sort order. Awards for example would be way down while they shouldn't imho. The other thing we'll implement to help is a filter bar. That in combination with running a bot to order statements as you wish will solve it imho. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) - How long will that take? A month? A year? My solution is very, very easy, you can have it in a day. You say "IMHO" - I am not talking about a specific user's personal choice, but about a choice made by all contributors via their selection of properties. Your solution is centralistic, mine is crowd based. Some people may not care about awards at all. Relying on a bot introduces a dependency on them, some WikiBases may not have it, and even in WikiData, there is a delay. And it is not a bot alone, what Emw proposes also requires discussions about what to place where. My solution could be ready on Tuesday, if you would like. With 1% of programming time and no time on ranking discussions, one has already a large benefit. Items that have the same set of properties would immediately have the same predictable order of statements. At the same time the order for the most popular properties is relatively stable, since the occurrences differ quite a lot. "instanceOf" is far above all of them. That is also how the English Wikipedia starts many articles, "ABC is a XYZ". Boom, 24h you have exactly that in WikiData. Andrea Shan (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrea, I mostly agree with Lydia. Ordering by occurrence may be very easy and has some coincidental meaningfulness, but it would have major deficiencies at least for Wikidata. Subclass of would be too low, birth and death statements would have unrelated statements in between, kinship properties would be likely be unintuitively ordered, etc.

If you think it could be done in a day, though, I would encourage you to implement it on your own Wikibase deployment and post a demonstration of it to the Wikidata mailing list on Tuesday. Emw (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Emw - "coincidental meaningfulness" - really? Look at German Wikipedia where someone complaint about random order (User:Hubertl: Die Datensätze sind überhaupt nicht einheitlich, einmal stehen die Partnerstädte auf der Seite ganz oben (Chartres), einmal ganz unten (Ravenna). Als Wikipedianer bekomme ich sofort das Bedürfnis, das zu organisieren. Was aber nicht geht.) and sees that as a barrier to use WikiData at all. This could be solved within a day. Just a) add one column for occurrences into the table that contains the properties. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) - is there such a table? b) when building the page sort by that column descending. It's a solution for the problem of random ordering and puts more obscure properties lower. Boom, done. Implementing the occurrences counter should be done anyway, independent from statement sorting, so that each WikiBase can show properties by "popularity" at a page Special:AllProperties or Special:Properties or something similar. The programming cost that belongs to statement sorting is then only to add "ORDER BY occurrences DESC". I agree that it would be nice to have date of birth and deaths next to each other, and have kinship next to each other. But this is more work than "ORDER BY occurrences DESC". Andrea Shan (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SubClassOf too low

Emw - you said, sorting by occurrences would result in subClassOf being too low. Look at Wikidata:Database reports/Popular properties. What comes before subClassOf?

Several identifiers - many classes will not have one, most of the popular identifiers belong to instances. If a class has an external identifier, then it is likely not as popular as subClassOf.
Coordinate location, citizenship, alma mater - will many classes have such? Most won't.
taxon name, taxon rank, parent taxon - if every taxon item would have a subClassOf statement, then subClassOf would be placed above. So, taxon-items generally don't have it, that means they will have these taxon-specific properties listed first. The problem "SubClassOf too low" does not exist. If one day these items are all properly classified (getting a subClassOf-statement) then this will list on top, since there are classes that are not taxa. Again, the problem "SubClassOf too low" would not exist.

For your other point, that subClassOf should come before instanceOf - how many of the 11 763 923 instances are classes? How many of the 161 660 classes are instances? Andrea Shan (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Andrea,

16% of classes have an identifier claim that is more popular than subclass of; see here.
9% classes are also instances; see here.

Best, Emw (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Emw, thank you. The query for the 16% counts 26 514 items. The 9% correspond to 15252 items. I look at the statements of the first three items, which are the first for both queries:

Q3 life_ #7 "subClassOf: physical object", #8 "instanceOf: property"
Q4 death #3 "instanceOf: property", #9 "subClassOf: event" (Note: an event as opposite of a physical object)
Q5 human #1 "subClassOf: person, Homo, item with given name property", #22 "instanceOf: taxon"

under step one of my proposal the identifiers would still be mixed in, I took your first query and removed FreebaseID (646) [9] that yields 16230 items. If freebase is going to duplicate all WikiData content, then this will be have, irrespective of domain-specific issues. I removed P960 and P961 which are taxon-specific - if one taxon is a subClassOf, then all taxa should be subClassOf, if they are tagged consistently, then subClassOf will be above these two anyway. On the other hand, if it is kept as it is, then probably editors that edit in taxonomy think taxon-statements are more relevant than subClassOf-statements. I don't agree with that, and I can imagine, people would add many more subClassOf statements to taxa. I additionally removed P373 CommonsCategory, which is not an Identifier and since that is linkable as an item in another section is only an artifact. That leaves "3275 items", i.e. the 16% is down to 2%. The first three are now human, beer, Wikipedia. I don't know why human is still listed, and at which position subClassOf would be. Any idea?

For life and death the first step of my proposal would probably yield

Q3 life_ #1 "instanceOf", #2 "Freebase identifier", #3 "Commons category", #4 "subClassOf"
Q4 death #1 "instanceOf", #2 "Freebase identifier", #3 "Commons category", #4 "subClassOf"

which moves instanceOf and subClassOf upwards. "subClassOf too low" could be at #1 or #2 for 84% of classes immediately. Among the top four further 14%. At almost no programming cost and without cost in discussions and bots.

Additionally the sorting by occurrences makes problematic modeling, e.g.

taxa without subClassOf
Commons category as a string instead of linked item
duplicating everything Id like Freebase identifier (Freebase identifier does not have the quality of domain-specific identifiers. How are the IDs maintained in WikiData at all? If machines do it, what properties do they look at for matching? WD items can change and the not match Freebase content anymore, or the other way around.)

more visible. Please support sorting by occurrences to make design problems more visible, so that they can be fixed! And if grouping is done, as I proposed, then "Freebase identifier" and "Commons category" are moved into a section apart from instanceOf and subClassOf anyway. Andrea Shan (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Emw - I moved several P133 to P279 and asked User:Ladsgroup to help with the task. User:Pasleim today deleted, what was scheduled for deletion since 27 September 2014. If parent_taxon would be fixed in the same manner, then subClassOf would be in the top 10. And for any item that is a class, the subClassOf-statement would be the first statement in the statements section, or if rdf:Type is present it would be the second statement. No more random placement, sometimes even at the bottom of a long list. Maybe that would also help User:Bennylin a little bit - no customized sorting, but at least no random order anymore. Andrea Shan (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Enable global AbuseFilter on Wikidata

Hey Everyone, today I had a discussion with Lydia about the spam we see over here, mostly in talk namespaces. Because of that I decided to upload a patch which will enable global AbuseFilters on Wikidata, like they are on most other Wikis. I looked over the global filters which are enabled right now and I'm reasonably sure there wont be any side effects with entity namespaces. Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

NOOBEES

I can not understand. I am out. Luizpuodzius (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Constraint on all items of a given type

Is it possible to specify a constraint like the following one?

If an item is of type taxon (Q16521), then it should have the property taxon name (P225).

Petr Matas 06:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You can create inverse constraint using {{Constraint:Item}}. Your rule result can be queried using AutoList: [10]. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply. Does inverse constraint mean "items with property taxon name (P225) should be of type taxon (Q16521)"? I would specify that by placing {{Constraint:Type|class=Q16521|relation=instance}} into taxon name (P225), but that is not what I want. How would I use {{Constraint:Item}}? Petr Matas 03:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge of President of the Maldives (Q1064606) and Q15272120

Hi. I tried to merge these two items with a list of presidents of the Maldives. It did not work. So either I have to empty one item and add it to the other one manually or perhaps someone know a better way? --MGA73 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that I have been able to get to work is empty one and add the links to the other. But I am not sure these should be merged - for example, there is an article, President of the United States, which is updated every four years as necessary to reflect the current President, and mostly discusses the office, not the current President, but does also have a list of all previous Presidents, and there is a separate List of article, which goes into a great deal more depth about each President than the President of article. 76.24.193.7 21:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There are some that are clearly lists in President of that can be moved to the List of item, like ptwiki Lista de presidentes das Maldivas, and List of links, or at least one, that can be moved to the President of item, like dawiki Maldivernes præsidenter 76.24.193.7 22:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But since there are no languages that have both types of articles, it would help to merge them all into "President of". As soon as there is at least one language that has both, they can be split, so that there would be a place for each. And if you like hold the List of item with a note to that effect (say in it do not use unless there is also an article about "President of" in some language. 76.24.193.7 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But why do you want to merge them? /ℇsquilo 11:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to merge them to get iw-links to all the articles. IMO we should only have one item for each topic. --MGA73 (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is correct that we should have only one item per topic, but in this case these are two different topics in my opinion: "President of...." is about the position someone is holding, its history, its historical development etc whereas "List of Presidents of ....." is a mere list. I agree that the Wikipedia articles don't live up to that expectation right now, but that doesn't change the nature of the items themselves. --Mad melone (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

There are two options, as I see it. You can pick up all of the President articles by moving the links all to the "President of the Maldives" item (Q1064606), leaving the "list of" item as a redirect so that in the future they can be split (right now there is no language that has both articles), or you can use local interwiki links from iw- to all of the ones that are not picked up from wikidata. In both cases when you go to the iw- article you will see a list of all of the languages that cover the President, regardless of whether it is a list article or a plain article. None of the articles, though, are actually structured simply as pure lists, with almost no description at the top, but some contain "list" in the title and some do not. 76.24.193.7 05:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

They should probably stay as separate items. Kaldari (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

call for new Wikimedia Grant Advisory Committee members

Hi all,

cross-posting an announcement that might be of interest to some in the Wikidata community...

The Grant Advisory Committee (GAC) is currently seeking new members to help review and evaluate grant proposals in the Project and Event Grants Program (often known as just PEG). The deadline for applying is December 30th and requires you leave a brief statement of interest plus comments about your experience relevant to committee work here.

I am not aware of any past PEG proposals that have specifically been related to Wikidata but still think it'd be good to have Wikidata perspectives represented, especially if the need for adjudicating on a Wikidata-related grant happens in the near future!

For more information, see the GAC page on Meta-Wiki.

cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Having separate properties for controlled ontologies is silly

On 10 March 2013 User:Tom Morris at Property talk:P107#Having separate properties for controlled ontologies is silly wrote a text regarding P107 with a headline that I am reusing for a text about P107.

Now we have 18 November 2014 and this silliness, which could be fixed within 24 hours still exits. Apart from that silliness, queries on the trees of the main types will fail for all items that have no instanceOf ("claim[107] and noclaim[31]", ~116 000 items), e.g. "claim[31:(tree[618123][][279])]" will miss all items that match "claim[107:618123] and noclaim[31]".

User:Ladsgroup seems to be very able and helpful with mass editing, his bot could copy all values from P107 to P31 if there is no P31. No information would be lost.

Getting more precise values for instanceOf is a task that can be unbundled, indeed, for editors that work manually it is easier to change the value of a property than to create a new statement, and delete another statement. For those people that use bots, altering instanceOf to a more specific value is very easy too. The easy way to go is

assigning any instanceOf and deleting P107 - within 24h
improving instanceOf - over time, improving this is also a general task for all items, e.g. claim[31:149621] which is "instanceOf=district" is found for 1000+ items - that looks like nonsense, all the items belong to a specific set

Most of the P107 have "geographical object" (Q618123) as value, there is

"claim[107:618123] with ~110 000 items
"claim[31:618123] with ~12 000 items

which is a further silliness that could be fixed within 24h. No wanted information is lost by having

"claim[107:618123] with 0 items
"claim[31:618123] with ~122 000 items

Andrea Shan (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding statements is easy, updating much harder. I rather see the work continue and once we have it drop below a reasonable level we can move the remaining clames. ~110 000 items is too much. I ran a bot the other day and I was able to match several 10.000's of these items. With a bit more effort we can probably match many more. So no, not yet. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Known issue with saving URL, Commons media or string statements

Hey folks. It is currently not possible to save statements with properties of type string, URL and Commons media. We're working on a fix and I hope we can deploy it within the next 24 hours. Sorry for the issue. We're tracking this at bugzilla:73582. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

And the issue is fixed again. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

property examples

I've started adding examples like this to property talk pages in the example field, but if I am doing something wrong or if there is a better way to do this, then please say so now. Thanks --Haplology (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Formatting looks fine. Picking good examples for P162 seems hard though. --- Jura 06:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Relations should not be added arbitrarily : there is really a need for domain and range

It is really strange to be able to add population property to a person !! how does this make sense?

Ashraf, in one sense it is indeed strange to be able to add population (P1082) to an item about a person. However, in practice, that rarely occurs -- a query for items that are instances of human (or person) and have population claims currently shows 1 such occurrence.

The Wikidata development team has said that hard validation constraints -- like preventing users from entering population claims in items with "instance of human" claims -- will not be implemented. I think that's wise. Wikidata bots do a pretty good job of flagging questionable claims based on restriction templates found in property talk pages, e.g. Property_talk:P1050. But even then, sometimes the constraints are too restrictive. Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/P1050#Type_Q215627 reports goze (Q502323) as a violation, as the item has the claim "medical condition: blindness" but not "instance of: human" claim. But looking in the Wikipedia article Goze, we see that Goze are "visually-impaired Japanese women". Can Goze, which is a class of human and not a particular instance of human, validly have a medical condition claim? I think so. Having hard validation constraints would prevent that reasonable statement.

Finally, as a matter of syntax, I'm not sure that domain and range would be the right way to implement hard validation constraints. Those properties would ideally have the semantics of rdfs:domain and rdfs:range. Thus, stating "population domain place" and "John Doe population 2" would entail that John Doe is a place, not that the population statement is incorrect. See http://www.ksl.stanford.edu/software/JTP/doc/owl-reasoning.html for more.

I agree that we need domain and range. They're coming; see Wikidata:Project_chat#Preparing_for_.22statements_on_properties.22. But it's important that we interpret them as they're defined by Semantic Web standards. Emw (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata where the various property properties are being discussed. There is a real problem with defining Domain and Range in accordance with standards: these define Domain and Range in terms of Classes. This means these aree useless in defining constraints on numeric, date, or text values. It also means that we cannot define the range using properties other than instance of/subclass of. I think definition of the domain and range need to be more like a query. Filceolaire (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What type of user Wikidata is really for?

I wonder what user is really targeted by Wikidata? I think that the user should have good knowledge representation understanding and technical background? how could we distinguish between wikipedia user and Wikidata user? Thanks!! – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.54.172.124 (talk • contribs).

What do you mean by user? Some people contribute while others are just reading the information. For many people Wikidata is even invisible, and working in the background of Wikipedia. -Tobias1984 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To my mind Users include:

those who develop the semantics of representing information here, commenting on rfcs and proposed properties
those who develop tools to identify items that need work using the constraints and other characteristics
those who develop bots to add info
those who add statements to the items by hand
those who work to get the sitelinks right.
those who create templates on the other wikis to use wikidata information
those who develop apps to reuse info from wikidata outside the WMF projects
those who read info from Wikidata where it appears in wikipedia articles, google searches or wherever else they see it.

Does that answer your question? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs).

@Filceolaire: I think on the contributing side at least a basic knowledge of databases id advantageous. And best case, an understanding of semantic ontology (something I myself don't claim to have). Working on the backend and the interfaces of the database of course needs real experts. I think very few people can just build up such knowledge in their free time. What people think about Wikidata, that don't have the before-mentioned knowledge, would surely be an interesting research topic. -Tobias1984 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Tobias1984, I disagree.With the right nudges - like the property suggester - I think anyone can edit here and they will pick up an understanding of how wikidata works as they go along. That is good for learners who just want to plunge in. Other learners prefer to read up before they start and we need to have Help pages where they can read-up before they start. Filceolaire (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Community Liaison job openings at WMF

Hello! There are currently 2 job openings, and I thought someone here might be interested. Please pass it along, if you know someone who might be interested or a good fit for the Community Engagement team.

Specifically:

Community Liaison - this position will initially focus on working with the Flow team and also with the Editing (VisualEditor) team, mostly at non-English wikis; however, a lot of smaller or short-term tasks continually come up, so the WMF is particularly looking for someone who is adaptable, and with several diverse interests.
Community Liaison (Part time contract) - this part-time position will primarily focus on working with the Mobile teams, as the link explains.

If you need further information, feel free to send an email to cep@lists.wikimedia.org, but do *not* use this address to apply. Thanks! m:User:Elitre (WMF) 11:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

duplicate item.... can't merge or correct....

Hello,

It seems that Q14566211 and Q10111548 have the exact same 2 links, but I cannot merge them or remove links. Could someone help me, please ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Merged. Thanks for reporting. I first removed the links from Q14566211 and then merged them using the merge tool. --Stryn (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Stryn ; I did try the exact same thing, but I could not save after removing the links, so it was impossible to merge :(

I found 4 other items with same ja and zh links and could merge them :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin, Stryn: See WD:TD.--GZWDer (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

? --Stryn (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

well, I have corrected about 60 of those I found when trying to tag items as Wikimedia category (Q4167836), but I really don't intend to work on more than 5 thousand items by hand :D - do you think a bot could do something, now that at least, a list exists, even if not complete ?

also I had a thought : would it be possible to modify the merge tool to accept merging when conflicting items (2 lins in the same language) are in fact the same ? it would be much simpler to correct these dupes... for now, the new GUI is really making it even harder than before, since the removal of a link is soooooooo looooooonnnnnnggggg… :( --Hsarrazin (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I recently had the same problem, that removing 2 duplicate siteling didn't work. When trying to remove one, the UI complained that the other was already used. How did you fix that, @Stryn:? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Tried another one now, and it works :). Lymantria (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikibooks

how link to Wikibooks in Wikidata?. Cannot use books: --Lagoset (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lagoset: [[b:]]? Or do you mean sitelinks? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Matěj Suchánek: So this? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For example, in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8854205 cannot add a wikibook link easily (in "Pages on other sites linked to this item"). --Lagoset (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikibooks has not been added yet as a supported project. This means you can't maintain its language links here on Wikidata yet. It will be possible in the future. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Any plan when will be Wikidata on next project(s)? JAn Dudík (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes :) Announcement today or tomorrow. (ie as soon as I get to it given today is super busy...) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Glossary is terrible

Wikidata:Glossary is terrible. It is far to technical. it requires a reader to wade through an introduction to semantic data in highly technical language, none of which is explained. before it even gets to the terms used on Wikidata. Even then the terms used are too technical and are not linked to explanations of those terms. It needs a complete rewrite with the Introduction to Structured Data moved to a separate page and the wikidata terms explained in simple language.

Unfortunately I cannot get started on this as , for some reason, all the edit tags on the paragraphs on this page have disappeared leaving only the edit button for the whole page. Anyone know why that is? Filceolaire (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't split the information between different pages because this will be a mess to keep everything up-to-date. Better separate the information of each topic into two paragraphs with one containing the basic information and the second more detailed and technical ones. Snipre (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Also bear in mind, that the page is at least partially translated to 10+ languages, so every change must be reflected in these languages. --Jklamo (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Jklamo Snipre, the problem isn't that the terms have basic and technical information. The problem is that the page starts with a bunch of definitions for terms which aren't used on Wikidata. If these are to be kept on the same page then they need to be moved to the end, after the definitions for wikidata terms. Filceolaire (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea why I can edit the whole page but I can't edit individual sections? Filceolaire (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Filceolaire: I think that has something to do with the translation templates. Tobias1984 (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The glossary is for explaining the somewhat weird Wikidata-lingo and give the necessary reference to rdf/linked data. It is not an introduction to Wikidata. If you want to make an introduction, make a new page. We do need a page that grounds our terms in other technical terms, if we can't use the glossary then we must make another similar page. It is although interesting that we already have diverged sufficiently to create problems for the devs, as there is now a bug about creating a new technical glossary. Jeblad (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wales

I'm still getting to grips with Wikidata so please excuse the question if it is a little basic, on all the entries I can find for places in Wales (same for Northern Ireland, England and Scotland) it says the country is the United Kingdom and that Wales (or Scotland or England or Northern Ireland) is the administrative territorial entity, perhaps this because of the unusual relationship of Wales being a country inside another country?

Mrjohncummings (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I would not object to using Wales as the country, and for Wales, list the UK as its country. I have not heard Northern Ireland be called a country, but certainly Scotland, Wales, and England are. But I doubt that anyone would want any place in England use England as the country. But before you go about making a lot of changes I would wait to see if anyone else has any opinion. 76.24.193.7 06:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that Northern Ireland doesn't really have a P132 (P132). Province is often used but Northern Ireland is only six of the counties in the nine counties of the traditional province of Ulster. Either way use located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) to say that the counties are in England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland and that England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are in the `United Kingdom so queries can find all these entities. Filceolaire (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, on en.wn (where the distinction is whether or not, say, Category:Wales belongs to Category:News articles by country), for years United Kingdom was a country while England, Scotland etc. were not, which seemed reasonable enough, but then someone added those to News articles by country, which also seemed reasonable enough that it didn't seem appropriate to remove them again, so that's how things have stayed for several years now. (As something of an aside, this is one reason I have misgivings about Wikidata being used to drive structures on other sisters: decisions that would be a matter of convenience on other sisters become deep philosophical questions at Wikidata, which would then lead to those other sisters being asked to let their own local matters of convenience be driven by somebody else's reading of some locally immaterial deep philosophy.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are constituent state (Q1763527) for states like Wales or Netherlands (Q55), is this not enough? There are federated state of Germany (Q1221156) for states of Germany and U.S. state (Q35657) for states of USA. All this states have a measure of sovereignty. --Diwas (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Discouraging - Why can some accounts via WiDaR make 85 hidden edits per minute and others not even 10 visible edits

1) 85 edits for time = 1:28 [11]. Edits are not visible at Special:RecentChanges.

2) At the same time, my WiDaR/AutoList2 window shows very fast

WiDaR error: As an anti-spam measure, you are limited from performing this action 
too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes.

and all WiDaR edits halt. They are not resumed, I have to manually re-start. All my edits show in Special:RecentChanges.

Andrea Shan (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Mainly because they are bots, and can bypass rate limits on editing. You can request approval of a bot if you have a set task that you want to use it for. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no bot, I just use WiDaR. Why place me in a group with spammers? Andrea Shan (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64829 Kaldari (talk) 07:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you being addessed to as spamming, has to do with you being not autoconfirmed at the time. Lymantria (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Andrea Shan: I changed your user rights to confirmed. I don't know why you haven't yet get autoconfirmed. This should solve the spamming issue. On Special:RecentChanges all edits are visible but not by default. Click on "Show bots" to see really all changes. --Pasleim (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This limit is to limit prossible damage by untested bots or spammers. Its easier to reset 200 edtits, than 10.000 if the bot or whatever programme has a malfunction or does something unexpected.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pasleim: - Thank you. @All - hopefully solved for me, but the software behavior does not look very welcoming. Maybe there could be a link to more detailed information in the block message. Andrea Shan (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Invalid token?

I'm trying to link a Fywiki page to this item (Q18571952), but it doesn't take en continues to say it's an "invalid token", when it's clearly a normal Wikipedia page. What's an "invalid token" and why is this item refusing take the link? Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ieneach fan 'e Esk: I think it worked for me. Is that the correct page I added? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tobias1984: Yes, it is. Thank you. So how did you do it? Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ieneach fan 'e Esk: Just the usual way: First language label and then the page. The Wikidata-software still has some weird behaviour sometimes. By the way: Is the infobox not supposed to say "Marmota kastschenkoi" at the bottom: fy:Wâldsteppemarmot. --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tobias1984: Well, thanks anyway. And yes, it is to say that, of course. That's what comes of copying an infobox from another page and then editing it, in stead of starting with an empty infobox. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Same problem in last days with Internet Explorer. Solution: close the browse and reopen it. No problem with Chrome. --ValterVB (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. That's quite helpful. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ieneach fan 'e Esk: One more question :) - Why is the range map not on Commons? Can you transfer it? --Tobias1984 (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tobias1984:Because I made it myself, based on the map shown on this page. About transferring stuff to Commons... Yeah, I've had a bellyful of the copyright Gestapo that's active overthere, so I don't upload files to Commons anymore. But feel absolutely free to transfer the map yourself, if you want. Ieneach fan 'e Esk (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverting changes by a new user

A new user has made some edits to the labels and descriptions of two items, the changes to the English version being clearly wrong (as in: deleting the English label, description and alias of a property).

Can I (or someone else) just restore the previous versions (would be a matter of seconds)? Or do we have to investigate whether their changes to other language (zh and zh-tw) entries were valid? (I would be inclined to just restoring the previous versions of those two items, but I am not familiar enough with the WikiData community to know if that approach could be considered too aggressive/disrespectful.)

The Items are Property:P437 (distribution) and Q7889 (video game). -- KonB (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

These have been cleaned, though someone who knows zh languages would do well to review the edited entry Q10383333 and the new entry Master of Meteor Blades (Q18562459) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding Statement to multiple items based on category/template

Can we add same statement to multiple articles based on category or template? For example, we see Category:Indian painters and add statements like Occupation =painter and instance of=human in every item related to article in that category. Wikidata Useful tool let it do for multiple statement but not for single statement and only for enwiki categories. Array Properties tool was requesting same to User:Legobot but now it seems not working. Is there any tool for doing this? Quickstatement tool is not helpful too. Can anyone create such tool. Please check array property tool for ideas. Regards -Nizil Shah (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. with autolist you can add by categoryYamaha5 (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

twinned administrative body (P190) not at both items

Many couple items twinned administrative body (P190) are not at both items. for example at Taichung (Q245023) > San Pedro Sula (Q274584) is sister city but at San Pedro Sula (Q274584) doesn't mentioned Taichung (Q245023) as sister City.Yamaha5 (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5: Magnus' tools are so great so this could be easy to solve. Here is the query and here is the tool. Open Notepad (Q274098) and copy the result to remove links, then copy this result to Microsoft Word (Q11261). Use find & replace (regex) with expressions [0-9]@.?(Q[0-9]@) → (Q[0-9]@)([!0-9]) → \2^tP190^t\1\3. Then move the text to the tool. You can start. Maybe the user could set a source like stated in (P248) and add it to the replace string – \2^tP190^t\1^tS248^t\1\3. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats great! thanks. it works :) it was 4625 cases! Yamaha5 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: bot to archive user talk page

Do we have a bot to archive user talk pages, like those on en.Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Hazard-Bot. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you; that's the bot I needed. For the benefit of others, User:Hazard-Bot/Archiver has instructions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

hermaphrodite (Q303479) vs hermaphroditism (Q16674976)

Are the same or is correct keep they divided? _{(I think the second)} --ValterVB (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I imagine they would need to be separate. For example, you could mark a person as 'instance of hermaphrodite', but not 'instance of hermaphroditism'. This is similar to the modiste (Q18199649)/hatmaking (Q663375) split. Kaldari (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes and no. We use sex or gender (P21)hermaphrodite (Q303479) with instance of (P31)slug (Q1953597) for notable slugs - though I suppose subclass of (P279)hermaphrodite (Q303479) might be appropriate to refer to the various taxons of slugs. Filceolaire (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Cases which doesn't have P31 but have P155 or P156

There are 8,576 cases which don't have instance of (P31) but have follows (P155) or followed by (P156) at here how can I find Q31 from P155 or P156 target Q? Like this Yamaha5 (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yamaha5: WDQ does not support variables, so one possibility is to choose one claim and make a more specific query. For example you can get this list for all possible albums. BTW if possible, add more specific instances of albums rather than just album (Q482994). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks this is usefulYamaha5 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Setting more specific claims - add or replace?

There are two cases where I want to set a more specific claim on items that already have a generic claim:

For items marked as 'occupation actor' I want to set 'occupation film actor', 'occupation television actor', etc.
For items marked as 'instance of album' I want to set 'instance of studio album', 'instance of live album', etc.

In these two cases, is it OK to just add the more specific claim, or should I replace the generic claim with the more specific claim? For actor, I'm thinking it might make sense to leave the generic claim, as actors are often several types of actors (voice, stage, tv, etc.) and I might not cover all the applicable cases with my more specific claim. According to WikidataQuery API there are several thousand items that include both actor and a more specific actor type (e.g. Charlie Chaplin), so this seems to already be a common pattern. Is it a bad pattern or OK? What about for albums? Kaldari (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Multichill, Sven Manguard, Pigsonthewing: Hoping to get some feedback on this since it will potentially be affecting lots of items. Kaldari (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll reserve judgement on the general point; but on your first example specifically, there are very few actors who only appear on TV, and not stage or film. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for the feedback, Andy. I think I'll leave the original 'actor' claims in that case. For albums, do you think it makes sense to completely replace the 'album' claim with either 'studio album' or 'live album' or is there any reason we would want to leave the original 'album' claim as well? Kaldari (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates broken?

Has something broken our coordinates? I've seen several items, in the last 24 hours or so, whose coordinate location (P625) value is "0°0'NFF"N, 0°0'NFF"E", even though a value was entered. See, for example, this fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Wikidata:Contact the development team#Rendering of coordinates. Nobody has answered so far, there were some changes according to the latest status update. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Being worked on :) Should be fixed with next deployment. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature

Hello. Please excuse the English. I would be grateful if you translated this message!

VisualEditor, a rich-text editor for MediaWiki, will soon be available on this wiki as a Beta Feature. The estimated date of activation is Wednesday, 26 November.

To access it, you will need to visit the Beta features page after the deployment and tick the box next to "⧼Visualeditor-preference-core-label⧽". (If you have enabled the "Automatically enable most beta features" option, VisualEditor will be automatically available for you.) There will also be a "⧼Visualeditor-preference-language-label⧽" that you can enable if you need it.

Then, you just have to click on "Edit" to start VisualEditor, or on "Edit source" to edit using wikitext markup. You can even begin to edit pages with VisualEditor and then switch to the wikitext editor simply by clicking on its tab at any point, and you can keep your changes when doing so.

A guide was just published at mediawiki.org so that you can learn how to support your community with this transition: please read and translate it if you can! You will find all the information about the next steps there. Please report any suggestions or issues at the main feedback page. You will also receive the next issues of the multilingual monthly newsletter here on this page: if you want it delivered elsewhere, for example at your personal talk page, please add the relevant page here.

Thanks for your attention and happy editing, Elitre (WMF) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please notice the correct direct link to access Beta features is this one. Thanks for your understanding! Elitre (WMF) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Elitre (WMF): Would I be right in presuming that this is for Wikidata/Project: and Help: namespace predominantly? I am guessing not for item (Q) and property (P) namespaces as they already have a customised editor. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Not on items and properties. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Elitre (WMF), Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) , any chance of getting Flow working on the talk pages here? Filceolaire (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on that but there are still a few features the Flow team wants to finish before that makes sense. I'll keep you posted. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope the will be an RFC before FLOW gets enabled so that I will have a chance to strong oppose.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 to that Yaroslav. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to have a discussion about this, yes. (Personal hate of RfCs ;-)) Let's objectively look at it when the Flow team thinks it is ready for us to test. I'd love for us to support them if we can. We are one of the few projects that are actually open to new things. Let's not lose that. (And of course let's also not use something that will make Wikidata worse. But let's look at this when the time comes.) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of VE here? I don't see it as being useful except in the main namespace in general, and here it doesn't make sense to have VE in the mainspace. --Jakob (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lydia. Filceolaire (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably they want just to have another wiki to add to a "Visual Editor successfully enabled" list, even if it doesn't make a lot of sense. That said, it will not hurt here, either. It's just for a very limited area of the project. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It'll be helpful for the help and project namespace pages. Not a lot but still significant enough imho. (Says the one who regularly curses wiki tables...) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

MMSI

It turns out that P1623 (P1623) is a duplicate of MMSI (P587). Do we have a process for merging properties? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

First of all: file a request at Wikidata:Properties for deletion. thx --Succu (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC) PS: P1623 (P1623) is not used. --Succu (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Remember that just because an item is not used on Wikidata that doesn't mean that it isn't used by an external data user. That is why we should redirect merged items so that our item IDs are stable, even over years so functions using these continue to work. Filceolaire (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

While your point is a good one, this is about a property, not an item. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

D'oh. Sorry there. This will remind me to read more carefully before commenting. Thanks Andy. Filceolaire (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Follows Property (P155)

For follows (P155) should both items are the same type? For example: At Interrex (Q1569007) (Organization) follows (P155) > Anna Jagiellon (Q233989) (Human) is correct? Yamaha5 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Yamaha5, I won't answer your question but I saw you added follows (P155) and followed by (P156) to many items as a statement. IMHO this property should only be used as a qualifier, for position held (P39) for example. Otherwise you don't know for which function the property applies. See for example Barack Obama (Q76). Thanks. — Ayack (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I added these property by their paired one. please see this and the Query Yamaha5 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can foresee examples where a person follows an organisation, or vice versa. Consider "person of the year" awards, which may occasionally be made to a team or group. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your example is not correct and I deleted, see the dates.--Oursana (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

So can we say the example in below?

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Q128245) --Fallows (P155)--> Iranian Revolution (Q126065) --Fallows--> Islamic republic of Iran.

In my opinion both side of P155 should have the same instance of (P31) Like shares border with (P47) which is meant only for "countries or administrative subdivisions, of equal level, that this item borders". Yamaha5 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

+1, also see replaced by (P1366)--Oursana (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

P155 implies a continuity. So it makes no sense to use this after a turmoil without taking care of the changed political situation. So you can not take an elected primeminister as the follower of a King after abolishing monarchy.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Giftzwerg 88: I mentioned that example to show we should have the same type items. please read my commentYamaha5 (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

For follows (P155) both items should be the same or similar album2 by band follows album1; book2 by author follows book2; nobel laureate1 in foo is followed by nobel laureate2 in foo.

Don't use Follows for heads of state and other offices. For these use replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366). Iranian democracy replaced by kingdom replaced by Islamic republic; Khomeni replaces the Shah replaces Mossadegh. Again both items should be similar. There is only one head of state at a time but album1 and album2 are both still on sale.

Just think "Could you take all the items linked by these properties and make a coherent 'List of' article from them?" Filceolaire (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

WDQ -- how to pass characters with accents and diacritics ?

Simple question, probably: How should characters with accents and diacritics be encoded for WDQ ?

The search I want is e.g. STRING[373:"Andreas Möller"], which should return Andreas Møller (Q499694).

I have tried

http://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=string[373:"Andreas Möller"]

and

http://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=string[373:%22Andreas%20M%C3%B6ller%22]

from the keyboard (and the latter through a script, the result of Perl's URI::Escape) but these both give back

{"status":{"error":"OK","items":0,"querytime":"177ms","parsed_query":"STRING[373:'Andreas MÃ¶ller']"},"items":[]}

Is there a different encoding that I ought to be using? (@Magnus Manske: ?) -- Jheald (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don´t know if that is your answer. This says "ö" is "\u00F6". But the right answer is "\u00f6" (small f). Than you get the item q499694 as answer. --Molarus 01:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

So it seems WDQ will accept

http://wdq.wmflabs.org/api?q=string[373:%22Andreas%20M\u00f6ller%22] (so long as the 'f' is small, ie not 'F6')

I thought URLs should usually be translated into UTF-8 and percent-encoded, hence the "%C3%B6" (because this is what browsers do).

But I can achieve the form above in Perl using the Encode::Escape::Unicode library. @Molarus: Thanks! Jheald (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging without creating a redirect is ugly

Why is it possible to merge items without creating a redirect? It leads to links pointing to one of the items becoming invalid and this is the result. Petr Matas 08:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We didn't get to implementing it yet. It is tracked at bugzilla:57745. If anyone wants to help with that please let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that I could update the relevant policies ~~and maybe the gadget UI~~. Petr Matas 09:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please fix this. Either delete or redirect the items, but don't leave them almost empty. --- Jura 18:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, someone else will have to continue with this, I have no more time for it now. Petr Matas 03:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should say "always redirect and optionally request deletion". Petr Matas 03:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone should continue by making the Merge gadget's "Create redirect" option permanently checked (disabled, non-clickable). Petr Matas 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

For merging of categories and recently created pages is delete useful. see Wikidata:Requests for comment/Redirect vs. deletion. JAn Dudík (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

At least it should force to choose between merge and delete. With the current situation it can just leave a blank item (but since I do not see how the arguments for deletion make any sense, I would rather remove the delete option, that would be simple and foolproof). --Zolo (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok Lydia, I think that I could do the Merge gadget modification. Where can I get its sources? Petr Matas 10:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

here: MediaWiki:Gadget-Merge.js --Pasleim (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting is ugly. I recently saw a false delete/merge, which I could not undo, because I have no undelete-rights. After deletion, normal users cannot see the original content. Andrea Shan (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

access to data for Commons coming on Dec 2nd

Hey folks :)

On request Commons is the next sister project to get access to the data on Wikidata. We'll be doing this on December 2nd. Please help update and expand c:Commons:Wikidata and Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons. Two caveats: 1) This is restricted to accessing data from the item connected to the page via sitelink. Access to data from arbitrary items will follow in January/February. 2) This is not for storing meta data about individual files. This will come later as part of the structured data on Commons project and be stored on Commons itself.

Looking forward to seeing what great things this will make possible again!

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I do not think it will make anything great possible until~we get arbitrary access. Also, note that by default, labels are shown in the site's default language (English). What we would need is the user's default language ({{int:lang}}) + fallback. Only arbitrary access lets us get around that through wikibase.getEntityObject(). --Zolo (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why arbitrary access will come early next year ;-) --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

populated places without P17

Please help to add P17 to these cases:

190 Cities without country (P17) here
6,248 Islands without country (P17) here
16 province without country (P17) here DoneYamaha5 (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
102 peninsulas without country (P17) here
819 town (Q3957) without country (P17) here
10,920 village (Q532) without country (P17) here

Yamaha5 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done about 400 Russian and Swedish islands. --- Jura 17:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what country should Antarctic Peninsula (Q185605) be in? I would say none. /ℇsquilo 17:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Esquilo: "None" should probably the preferred statement. But there are also claims by UK, Chile, and Argentine which should probably be marked as deprecated statements, because the Antarctic Treaty is the only compromise that everybody accepts. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

}} "Country: Antarctica" is technically inaccurate on all sorts of levels, but many databases use it as a placeholder and it's reasonably well understood. Listing the Antarctic territories is possible - but be careful with this approach. Chile and Argentina claim it as a coherent part of their national territory, but the UK considers their claim to be an "overseas territory" (comparable to, say, the Falklands), and I believe most other claims are of this form. They're not quite the same kind of thing.

In addition, we can't rely on listing the territorial claims (disputed or not) to handle Antarctica as there's a large sector of West Antarctica, in Marie Byrd Land, which is not covered by any of them. So we'd need a different solution in any case. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternatively, could we set up a check such that any geographical feature with continent (P30):Antarctica (Q51) does not require a country (P17) property? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Esquilo, Tobias1984, Andrew Gray: Using "Country:Antartica" works but, in my opinion, a better solution is to mark these "continent (P30):Antarctica (Q51)" and note that P30 is acceptable instead of P17. P30 to be used for places in Antartica and for places which are in more that one country, such as some lakes and mountain chains etc.

Admin needed for property deletion - P202 lake type

Could an admin delete P202? See Property talk:P202#Deletion. Andrea Shan (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done --Pasleim (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Pasleim - Thanks a lot! Very helpful! Andrea Shan (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

statements on properties and first language fallbacks are coming

Hey folks :)

Good news before the end of the year!

You can go to test.wikidata.org right now and test out statements on properties. If everything goes well we will make it available on Wikidata in 1 week. One thing that is missing is a new datatype to link to other properties to indicate things like "property x is the inverse of property y". That will come a bit later. Discussion about proposed properties to be used on properties is happening at Wikidata:Property proposal/Property metadata.
Language fallbacks are coming. This is a first version. It'll only show fallbacks of linked entities on an item. So if you are viewing an item with a statement linking to another item you will see a label in another language for this linked item if it doesn't have a label in your language. Fallbacks are currently implemented to follow the fallback for system messages. Unfortunately you can't try that out on test.wikidata.org yet. That'll hopefully happen next week. It should go live on Wikidata in two weeks.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

On test.wikidata.org I can only add statements on properties directly after I have created a new property. Later on, no editing is possible because no edit/add button is shown. --Pasleim (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ewww... Marius just made a patch for it: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/176360 Thanks for testing. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Will language fallbacks apply for Wikidata UI only or to labels retrieved via API/template inclusion syntax (e.g. in Wikipedia) as well? --DixonD (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It should come via the API as well. (I need to verify though.) On the client not yet. See phabricator:T76216 and its blockers. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I hope that there will be a way not to use language fallbacks (or to check whether they are used for the particular property at least) in the property parser function. The community of Ukrainian Wikipedia is really frustrated having Russian as a fallback for Ukrainian no matter how many times we tried to change that and if we get Russian text in Ukrainian Wikipedia articles via infoboxes, for instance, that will be a disaster. --DixonD (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, DixonD. What kind of fallback would be good for the specific case of the Ukrainian Wikipedia? --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think we don't need language fallbacks for all Wikidata clients (except maybe Wikimedia Commons) and the Ukrainian Wikipedia, in particular. While Wikidata is a multilingual project, Wikipedias, Wikisources etc are monolingual, so they don't need texts in foreign languages to appear on content pages. Ideally, it would be great to have it configurable per site, so that the local community could decide what language fallbacks they would like to have if any. --DixonD (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Will language fallbacks be imported to Wikipedia as well or will we still have the number of the element in Q123456 format? In current situation it is quite obvious for a reader that one gets Q-some numbers as a label is not available on Wikidata, but getting a mix of names in a local language and names in a fallback language may be mess. As an example, en:Bavaria and de:Bavaria mean different things to an English and to a German speaker. Thus it is very important to make sure that names in fallback languages will not appear in Wikipedias in a local language, or at least they will be clearly highlighted to avoid ambiguity — NickK (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah we will probably have a more limited number of fallbacks on the Wikipedias. I still need to wrap my head around that part so specific examples of what fallback you'd like to see and which not are really helpful. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

New qualifier needed - "verified account"?

I'm not sure the best way to structure this request - whether it is a proposed qualifier for the property website account on (P553), or another one like social networking service (Q3220391) or website username or ID (P554) or Facebook (Q355) or X (Q918) or... But what I'm looking for is a way to indicate that a social media account associated with a person or organisation has been officially 'verified' according to the rules of that website. You know: the little blue 'tick' that appears next to a famous person's name in twitter etc... "Verification" is increasingly an important tool of social networks to declare a fact about their highest visibility customers - that they are "the real person". I believe we should have a method for incorporating that fact into our data structure. As a side point, If used consistently, this would also be a valuable way to assist Wikipedia Infobox debates about whether a person/organisation's social media profile should be linked - and if so, which one(s).
What do you think, and how would you suggest formulating this proposal officially? Wittylama (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

One option is to say this in a qualifier or (maybe) better a reference using sourcing circumstances (P1480)Project:Confirmed users (Q13963290). Filceolaire (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2014/11

Little technical problem with Wikipedia:Goings-on (Q5268366)

User interface changes

Wikidata turns two!

Birthday gift: Missing Wikipedia language links

Birthday gift #2: Cupcake Userbox

Problem with wikidata in greek

Merging via "Add links" results in blank entries

Seeking feedback for planned edits related to my project

False "featured article"

English Heritage list number (P1216)

Heads up: Mass item creation

Interface - section - In other languages

Authority control gadget failure

Different article types in one Wikidata item

Consistent datatypes

Adding auto description for categories

Mark vandalism as patrolled?

Placing warning tags and messages

3,727,770 items with zero statements (22.70% of all)

What datatype for IRC channels?

Tournament draws

Removing multiple items

Preferential popup property label as a qualifier?

Wikidata wins Open Data Award in the category Publisher

English link from German Galvanoplastik

Zero error rate

Sequences

Constraint violation report flooded

Iona and Peter Opie (Q3154114)

using 'based on' (P144) to list the libraries or frameworks a software is based on

Next IRC office hours

Empty items

Preparing for "statements on properties"

False friend "pamphlet"

Firefox problem

Need to merge 2 "Consensus" items

One vs. several sitelink-item correspondence

Abuse filter or Revert bot

History of film

Reordering Statements wiki-style (non-js)

SubClassOf too low

Enable global AbuseFilter on Wikidata

NOOBEES

Constraint on all items of a given type

Merge of President of the Maldives (Q1064606) and Q15272120

call for new Wikimedia Grant Advisory Committee members

Having separate properties for controlled ontologies is silly

Known issue with saving URL, Commons media or string statements

property examples

Relations should not be added arbitrarily : there is really a need for domain and range

What type of user Wikidata is really for?

Community Liaison job openings at WMF

duplicate item.... can't merge or correct....

Wikibooks

Wikidata:Glossary is terrible

Wales

Discouraging - Why can some accounts via WiDaR make 85 hidden edits per minute and others not even 10 visible edits

Invalid token?

Reverting changes by a new user

Adding Statement to multiple items based on category/template

twinned administrative body (P190) not at both items

Wanted: bot to archive user talk page

hermaphrodite (Q303479) vs hermaphroditism (Q16674976)

Cases which doesn't have P31 but have P155 or P156

Setting more specific claims - add or replace?

Coordinates broken?

VisualEditor coming to this wiki as a Beta Feature

MMSI

Follows Property (P155)

WDQ -- how to pass characters with accents and diacritics ?

Merging without creating a redirect is ugly

access to data for Commons coming on Dec 2nd

populated places without P17

Admin needed for property deletion - P202 lake type

statements on properties and first language fallbacks are coming

New qualifier needed - "verified account"?

Navigation menu

Search