Jump to content

Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/08

From Wikidata

API: wbcreateclaim including wbsetreference

Hi! Can anybody give me an URL example how to create a claim including setting its reference (P143)? I am missing an example here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/API

I don't want to edit a statement in two steps if a claim and its reference could be edited in one step instead. But I don't know the URL for this combination.

Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK not possible with wbcreateclaim and wbsetreference. You would instead read the item in JSON representation, modify the JSON object and send it back to the server as the data parameter with wbeditentity. (disclaimer: API beginner here.) —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: as far as I have heard it should be possible with wbsetclaim, but I cannot find the correct API URL. So please give me an example how to proceed as stated above. I have tried your proposal with wbeditentity, but it doesn't work this way. Thank you, Doc Taxon (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Doc Taxon: I only have an example in Python (pywikibot), see this PAWS notebook. Therein, functions compileSourceJSON() and compileClaim() are worth to look at, and the lines before and including Qitem.editEntity() (which uses wbeditentity). As you can probably see in the code, I also tried to work with the other two API calls, but I did not get that running. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Here a specific JSON example: 

{
   "id":"q18209541$13572468-2468-1357-eca9-bdf024681357","type":"statement","mainsnak":{
      "snaktype":"value","property":"P69","datavalue":{
         "value":{
            "entity-type":"item","numeric-id":569460,"id":"Q569460"
         },"type":"wikibase-entityid"
      },"datatype":"wikibase-item"
   },"references":[
      {
         "snaks":{
            "P143":[
               {
                  "snaktype":"value","property":"P143","datavalue":{
                     "value":"Q48183","type":"wikibase-entityid"
                  },"datatype":"wikibase-item"
               }
            ]
         }
      }
   ]
}

But this example gives the error: 

error {code modification-failed info {Data value corrupt: $data must be an array} messages {{name wikibase-validator-bad-value parameters {{$data must be an array}} html {* {Data value corrupt: $data must be an array}}}} * {See https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api-announce> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.}} servedby mw1205

How could I fix it? Doc Taxon (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never seen that message, and I can’t find relevant docs right now. Will try to look at it later this day, maybe others can help as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The part "value":"Q48183" should be "value": {"entity-type": "item","numeric-id": 48183, "id": "Q48183"},. Mbch331 (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mbch331: Wow, that's it! Why didn't I find this solution myself, though I used this part in the first snak of the statement? Thank you very much indeed, Doc Taxon (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

✓ Doc Taxon (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Mahir256 (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Che Guevara's travel diary

Is residence (P551) the best property to state where a traveler lived for some days? I am thinking about adding the The Motorcycle Diaries (Q1769105) route to Che Guevara (Q5809) item, but I wanted to ask first. Emijrp (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Please use point in time or date qualifiers together with 551.
visit travel result in no specific properties at the moment. d1g (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to add start time (P580) and end time (P582). Is there any property for "official visits"? Che was a minister in Cuba and he visited some countries. Emijrp (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I have proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/place visited.--GZWDer (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Performance problems and their effect on our community

Hoi, I am staggered to learn that people think it appropriate to say that someone is "asocial" because he is running a bot as he always did. It is not a Wikidata problem as the backlog is the consequence of a design choice at the MediaWiki end. The problem needs to be fixed at that end as well.

Wikidata as a datasource is immature and it needs a lot more work before it will function properly to fill data in info boxes on the scale of all Wikipedias. There has not been a study to the effectiveness of posting Wikidata changes and at the same time much of the data entered in Wikidata is from Wikipedias. There are no consolidation processes available between Wikidata and the Wikipedias so we can surely do without our changes in Wikipedia but we cannot do without adding more data to Wikidata.

In consequence, running a bot is not asocial and blocking a bot operator and using such accusations has a severe negative effect on our community. There is no planning for a fix for this problem and we should therefore just dismiss this as a Wikipedia problem that the Wikipedia engineers have to fix. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that naming him "asocial" was due to poor English skills to find a better and nice word. The bot was adding wrong labels, so I think that the block was OK. About the performance, I think Wikidata developers/sysops must fix the problem ASAP or Wikidata will die from success. Emijrp (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It was more about the editing speed, 155 edits per minute is too much. Operators of Wikimedia servers have complained last year about such edit rates. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
We should publish more information (without too many words): acceptable rate, most plausible period when to run scripts in huge bulk.
Perhaps special page for "our servers are slow right now" status (machine-readable red flag for mass edits).
But we shouldn't bite people when they just learn new things for the first time or acknowledge their mistakes. d1g (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
We have Wikidata:Bots#Bot requirements, but we failed to establish rules for QuickStatements (Q20084080) users or similar mass editing tools. --Succu (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The tech needs to be able to handle way more than 155 edits per minute. At that rate, there will only be 2.7 edits per item per year across our current knowledge base. Since every item needs descriptions in hundreds of languages (and plenty of other properties), then I think that is too slow (even though many descriptions can be done in one edit). I agree that engineers should turn their attention to this asap. --99of9 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
NO! It is more important that we have good well sourced statements in every item. If the label is unique, a description does not look essential at all. We have fallback, why do we need descriptions in hundreds of languages for Flen (Q2022586), when we have one in English? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Er, I never said that statements weren't important. I used labels only to show that the scale of the whole mission is larger than 2.7 edits per year. I speak English, so one is fine for me, but I would like participation from the non-English world. --99of9 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? Because we are a multilingual project. This is out of discussion. Emijrp (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
First, labels are not unique and do not need to be unique. Second, because of statements there is a difference between items. Third, we do not need descriptions in any language when descriptions are generated automatically. This provides a better solution for the 280+ languages we aim to support. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
As said before, my RPi is now shut down, and will not do any edits on descriptions anymore, as I learned that our server park is designed for manual update speed only. This means we should from now on rely on manually adding descriptions to items, else the update processes that feed the other tools are interrogated. It appears to me that it seems to be more important that these other tools get their information in time, although I do not see why my bot was causing this, as it was not doing any edits for the last four weeks due to my holidays. And blocking my bot and calling me names, as a first means of communication is what is my interpretation as asocial. I have never been aware of any technical issues, and I'm also not sure if my bot was really any cause of these issues, but others seem to be very sure that I am the root cause of all problems in this world, and I start to feel like it is that some people need someone to blame, instead of a solution. But when I'm not around anymore I can at least not be blamed no more. I sincerely hope for all of you that I was indeed the root cause of all issues, because they will now be solved for once and for all. Edoderoo (talk)
"but others seem to be very sure that I am the root cause of..." GerardM said something different. Anyway it isn't something we should spend time on discussions. d1g (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocking bots is a very common thing when they are causing trouble (generating lag, malfunctioning, etc). The first link in {{Bot}} is for blocking, not a surprise. My own bot has been blocked before for fast editing (I was contacted to reduce speed, but it was midnight in Europe and I was sleeping). It isn't a big deal. Let's calm down the drama. And if your bot isn't going to do more tasks, its bot flag should be removed. Emijrp (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not in blocking, but in the (lack of) communication. The first communication was telling me that I am asocial, and I should know that because there were issues raised on Twitter and Facebook, plus an additional I helped you so many times improving your script which is just a blunt lie too. And I didn't say my bot isn't going to do any addional tasks, but it will not add any more descriptions. That is a different thing. Edoderoo (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


Perhaps queue for writes would be useful

Feed Apache Kafka (Q16235208) as fast as we can, then feed main servers as nice as we want.

Bot owners could then direct bots against Kafka servers - is this bad idea? d1g (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A Kafka server is perfectly acceptable to provide data to the "recent changes" of projects. It will not solve the problem that we are growing the amount of changes and that this ability is at stake. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
When reads and writes are isolated, it is much easier to squeeze performance from other parts.
Less read servers = more write servers.
Kafka is much scalable than home-grown solution to solve exactly the same problem. d1g (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Archive where books et al are kept after death

Hoi, for many botanists their archive, herbarium is kept at a university herbarium or one or another institution. How do I indicate this? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Separate items about collection collection (Q2668072)
Next step is to connect them to depts/universities. d1g (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
There's a property for that: archives at (P485). - PKM (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you :) I used it here for instance :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, recently at Library of Congress and at the Smithsonian training for Wikidata, I've been asking folks to use archives at (P485) for this. -- Fuzheado (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed building or structure

Bronnenpark (Q33219598) doesn't exist yet, still we want to indicate what it would be and when it would be that. Is the current solution acceptable for everyone? It's not showing up as a tram stop in the query service and it's not showing up as a violation in constraint reports. We can even generate database reports this way. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/06#Building under construction or similar discussions in past. I still think that possible property "status" is the best solution.--Jklamo (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I prefer events over P31 statements which should be removed. This is also 1 triple less in queries. 11:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC) 


# Q33219598
SELECT
#DISTINCT
 * {
{
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?value
WHERE 
{
  ?item            p:P31   ?whatNode               .
  ?whatNode wikibase:rank  wikibase:DeprecatedRank .
  ?whatNode       ps:P31   ?value                  .
  ?whatNode       pq:P2241 wd:Q811683              .
  
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}}UNION {
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?value
WHERE 
{
  ?item            p:P793  ?whatNode               .
  ?whatNode wikibase:rank  wikibase:DeprecatedRank .
  ?whatNode       ps:P793  wd:Q15051339            .
  
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}}
}

Third option d1g (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The following query uses these:

Try it!
But how will this be for a simple query user? Do we need a SERVICE for "things that exist"? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What exists for sure is a project. I propose a property « project of » and items for project. Maybe a property « result » to link the project to the item of the concrete stuff. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: I’d say that something like
would work for the construction phase. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin:
I actually think that service for this would help significantly.
We cannot prefer only "current" events
Sometimes we want current items (countries, currencies)
Sometimes we want historic items (to fill items, to lookup biography in respective age)
Sometimes we want future items (to fill items)
Sometime we want everything (to count things)
Most easiest (the only way) for computers is to fill start/end dates and point-in-times. d1g (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

See for a proposal : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#.C2.AB_Project_of_.C2.BB_and_.C2.AB_outcome_.C2.BB author  TomT0m / talk page 16:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

scientific notation

The entry for atomic mass unit (amu) states that 1 amu = 0.00000000000000000000000000166053904±0.00000000000000000000000000000000002 kilogram. This reference site uses scientific notation to state its value as 1.660 539 040(20) x 10-27 kg. Both values are identical, but the latter is much more useful to users who understand what an atomic mass unit is. Is there any way that I can use the scientific notation in the field "conversion to SI unit" rather than the very cumbersome expression currently there.? Martinvl (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be possible to add numbers like this one to Library of Babel (Q31818466)? Emijrp (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Date of award

Shanghai Tower (Q18547) won the 2015 Emporis Awards, meaning it won the Emporis Awards for a building finished in 2015. But the award was given in November 2016. How do I show that in the statements ? --Zolo (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

To me they are different significant event (P793)
construction (Q385378) with end date
Emporis Skyscraper Award (Q1339438) with point in time. d1g (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are. The issue is that we will have a Emporis Skyscraper Award (Q1339438) with a point in time (P585) with a date in 2016, while this edition of the contest seems universally known as the "2015 Emporis Skyscraper Awards" as the 2015 Emporis Awards, see for example the list shown in en:Emporis Skyscraper Award. edition number (P393) might work that, but that does not really feel right. --Zolo (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Q166389#P166 (Academy Awards) uses the year, about which the award is given, not the year, when the actual award is given. --Edgars2007 (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Separate items for every event: Emporis Skyscraper Award 2015 (Q33997538)
1 d1g (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
1 breaks Wikidata's convention that we use non-date-specific item in award received (P166). Using Emporis Skyscraper Award 2015 (Q33997538) as a for work (P1686) qualifier make work, but I don't think the way things are done in Emporis Skyscraper Award 2015 (Q33997538) is a good idea, as it means the point in time (P585) will have different meanings on different items. We might need a new "awarded for period" property ? --Zolo (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Point in time is not main property, but a qualifier to different properties.
Previous agreement not able to capture delayed events.
I suggest to move this section to P166. d1g (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
@Edgars2007, D1gggg: Ok thanks, a new property is the only solution I see, I have created Wikidata:Property proposal/Awarded for period. --Zolo (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

merge Q35355535 with Q4117397

i have created a new one by mistage, i cant delete it anymore and so i am unable to link the new created german wikipedia article with its english. I have created by mistake but i had should just add an item, but i am unable to do it now because it is still in the other thing. How bad how bad. So please merge them, i dont know how..  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.17.207.101 (talk • contribs) at 7. 8. 2017, 23:19‎ (UTC).

✓ Done --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

League seasons

Hello. I want your opinion about that:

Example:

⟨ Q33726407  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ season of a football league ⟩
⟨ season of a football league ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
⟨ season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ season (Q25938183)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

Do you think is a correct structure? There is a mess with sports seasons.

Xaris333 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

so one rule of thumb is to think of "instance of" as meaning "Is a", and "A subclass of B" implies that everything that "is a" A then also "is a" B. For that reason I think your P31's in lines 2 and 4 should eb P279's instead: The 2016–17 Premier League "is a" "football competition season", and also "is a" "season of a sports league" - at least those claims make sense to me. Most such relations should be P279's rather than P31's. Having two or more layers of P31's below a class makes it a "metaclass", which is sometimes needed but generally harder to think about consistently. ArthurPSmith (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith: Like that:

⟨ Q33726407  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ season of a football league ⟩
⟨ season of a football league ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
⟨ season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ season (Q25938183)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

or

⟨ Q33726407  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
⟨ season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ season (Q25938183)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

Xaris333 (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


You could do even in a simpler way: see above.
--- Jura 17:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: Yes. So do we all agree that this it the appropriate structure? To show what a specific season is and to connect it with the league item. If yes, we can apply this to sport seasons. Now in 2016–17 Premier League (Q23009701) we have with instance of (P31) association football competition (Q15838706) season (Q27020041) and Premier League (Q9448). I am not saying that are wrong, but some sports season items had different values with instance of (P31) and is complicate. We can agree to at least correct structure. Of course someone can add something more like association football competition (Q15838706), but that does not influence the structure we are suggesting.

Another way could be (is it wrong?):

Xaris333 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jura1: I am using P3450 a lot! What about the film festival? :) Xaris333 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless someone goes through all the items, they will keep having 4 or 5 different approaches (even remaining without statements).
--- Jura 17:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1:. I can try apply to all, I will need a logical time period to do it. But I need to have a structure that all believe is correct. Xaris333 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To me P3450 is a useless duplicate of « instance of ». All the competitions are competitions types that are instanciated each time. The beforehand solution was perfectly functional. This just add unneeded constraints, hence maintenance and bureaucracy burden. The same for festivals and all kind of periodic events. What is it supposed to gain ? author  TomT0m / talk page 12:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

duplicates of physical object (Q223557)

I usually merge such items on sight, physical object (Q11828321) - isn't used now Infovarius d1g (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC) @Infovarius: d1g (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

well, the reason there are two is because there are two distinct Polish wikipedia pages on the topic, so they can't be merged. Maybe there's a better translation or at least a better description available for the second one. ArthurPSmith (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
ping Paweł Ziemian Danmichaelo (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Participant of international football competitions

Is it OK to add participant of property (participant in (P1344)) with international football competitions (e.g. African Cup of Nations, Euro, ...) value as it is done with Olympics and FIFA World Cup?--Muhammad Abul-Futooh (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Mahir256 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Muhammad Abul-Futooh: Hello. Can you give me an example to be sure that I have understood correctly? Xaris333 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, this player Ahmed Hassan (Q42231) has participated in African Cup of Nations 1998, shall I add this to participant in (P1344) or it is a property for for FIFA competitions only?--Muhammad Abul-Futooh (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

According to property description "event a person or an organization was a participant in, inverse of participant (P710) or participating team (P1923)". So you can. And it is not a property for FIFA competitions only. It's general. Xaris333 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Muhammad Abul-Futooh (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

aliases and diacritics

It is necessary, indifferent or incorrect to create aliases for labels with diacritics ? exemple --JotaCartas (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The search feature doesn't support diacritics fallback yet, so it's quite useful. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin, JotaCartas, MisterSynergy, Emijrp:
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T170775
Mahir256 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks --JotaCartas (talk) 19:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Petscan: remove a property

I am trying to remove a value of a property with Petscan. I am writing -P31/Q1478437 in the box. But, it's always removing the first value or the P31. Not only the Q1478437. Xaris333 (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The correct statement would be -P31:Q1478437. Mbch331 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Why the box to add or remove statements not always appears? Xaris333 (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Depends on what petscan thinks is the "source". You can select "Wikidata" for "Use wiki" under "Other sources" to let the box always appear. Not the first time this has been asked, wish Magnus didn't burry that one so deeply. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

΄ Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Integrate Wikidata with non-Wikimedia wiki

Hi, I'm sorry if this is not the correct place for this question. I was wondering if it was possible to integrate Wikidata (with Wikibase) on a non-Wikimedia wiki. If yes, is there a manual or guide for how to do so? Reception123 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Reception123: no, it is not possible. Jared Preston (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for the answer. Reception123 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It might be possible depending on the added value of a cooperation. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I got a quick question!

Hi, I'm not used to wikidata, I only use it when I want to add a link to different wikis if the article has them. I noticed that virtual assistant (Q3467906) has many links to it, but not automated online assistant (Q4826465). There's a lot of confusion it seems. There's also Intelligent software assistant (Q14002853), which only links to the portuguese wikipedia.

I was wondering how I could easily fix things like that, instead of asking here. I usually get this message when I try to delete a sitelink:

  • Warning: The action you are about to take will remove a sitelink from this item. Sitelinks should only be removed if the page in question has been deleted, or if that link is being moved into another item. If you are trying to do neither of these, please do not submit this edit again.

I hope I could get some help. The docs are good, but it's a lot of information! I got a bit lost I guess. Tetizeraz (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: We are here not trying to maximize the number if sitelinks in each item. Instead, we are trying to get as exact matches between the subjects as possible. If that results in two items with only one sitelink in each, that is the way we prefer. You can remove one sitelink and install it in another item if you like. But I prefer to move them by some tools we have. I do not know if that is standard, but I see a green "turn right" -traffic sign next to each sitelink. That tool allows you to move sitelinks from one item to another in one single edit. If some sitelinks do not fit in any present item, you are supposed to create a new item for it. Otherwise it is large risk that the sitelink will be reinstalled by somebody here, thinking that the removal was a mistake or in some cases vandalism. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Place of a championship

Hello. Question of property about where an event take place.

Example, La Liga (Q324867) is a national championship.

We are usually use

⟨ La Liga (Q324867)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ country (P17) View with SQID ⟨ Spain (Q29)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

but sometimes I have found

⟨ La Liga (Q324867)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ operating area (P2541) View with SQID ⟨ Spain (Q29)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

(the property is about organization not an event)

I believe that country (P17) is enough but I have see P2541 in some championships.

Or maybe the correct one is:

⟨ La Liga (Q324867)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ location (P276) View with SQID ⟨ Spain (Q29)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

And what should we use for a local championship like Divisiones Regionales de Fútbol in the Community of Madrid (Q2540334)? Maybe,

⟨ La Liga (Q324867)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ country (P17) View with SQID ⟨ Spain (Q29)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

with

⟨ La Liga (Q324867)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ location (P276) View with SQID ⟨ Community of Madrid (Q5756)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩

Xaris333 (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

For national leagues let's continue using country (P17) to indicate the country (I think some Wikipedias tries to get the P17 value for their infoboxes if they are not filled in locally). location (P276) as a replacement for P17 does not look good to me, but it probably can be used additionally for local or regional competitions. XXN, 11:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
For leagues, I started using "operating area (P2541)". This especially in the UK, as using only P17 describes rarely the the geographic coverage. "location" seems to work better for the place of stadiums and other venues.
--- Jura 17:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that every competition or season must have P17 (except international). The issue is about to have or not another property for the place where the competition take place. In national competitions P17 value will be the same with the value of the other item. operating area (P2541) is not for an event. Xaris333 (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think P2541 can't be used to describe "area this league operates in, serves or has responsibility for"?
--- Jura 04:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: a league is an event, not an organization. Xaris333 (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that extending older country for sport (P1532) would make more sense than operating area (P2541)
Broadcasting company can have P2541, but not sport-related things IMO. d1g (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Some "national" leagues includes also parts of other nations. The Swiss football-league includes teams from Liechtenstein (Q347). The national league of the Republic of Ireland includes teams from Northern Ireland. The Danish league in Aussie rules includes Swedish teams etc, etc. If I remember correctly, it has even happened that a Northern Irish team has won the Republics national league. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

quickstatements

1. S854 S813 are missing - any mistakes here?

2. I'm not able to continue edits, status is "Processing" but any reason why? 

Q21462723	P2541	Q23556	S854	https://about.ubereats.com/en/cities/	S813	+2017-08-04T00:00:00Z/11
Q21462723	P2541	Q16559	S854	https://about.ubereats.com/en/cities/	S813	+2017-08-04T00:00:00Z/11

... 

Q21462723	P2541	Q84	S854	https://about.ubereats.com/en/cities/	S813	+2017-08-04T00:00:00Z/11
Q21462723	P2541	Q456	S854	https://about.ubereats.com/en/cities/	S813	+2017-08-04T00:00:00Z/11

d1g (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

URLs need quotes around, ie. "https://about.ubereats.com/en/cities/". Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: QuickStataments (version 1) jams upon an instruction that cannot be executed, like merging two items that refer to one another. When it hangs, manually remove the top lines from the instruction set, up to and including the last instruction executed, then delete the next (and faulty) instruction, then Run again to execute the remainder of your statement list. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 19:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Help page was quiet about URLs. Question about S813 is still open
@Laddo: I tried several things and 3 versions, it seems that quotes are necessary everywhere. d1g (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: Be aware that you may only add a single data pair in a given reference, using QS. There has been a long-lasting request to improved that, here, but it was never fixed. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Issue with HAL Airport wiki article

Hello, for the "HAL Bangalore Airport" article at English Wikipedia, Nederlands/Dutch is listed as a language on the left sidebar with the article title "Bengaluru International Airport". This is incorrect, as the latter article is about a different airport. However, when I tried to delete the Dutch article in HAL Airport's Wikidata item, it was not even there (see here). How can it be deleted? Sunnya343 (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a manual interwiki link in the EN Wikipedia article (it's the very last line in "edit source"). If it's incorrect, you can delete it. - PKM (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Importance of wikidata support in infoboxes

This is a rather broad/vague question, but I am asking because it is staring to bother me now. I've got an email about a week or so ago, stating that work is starting on supporting global templates (such as infoboxes and so on), so that complex templates need not be duplicated. That's great news, no issues there. Now, if you look masterpieces like en:Template:Infobox telescope, and articles that use them (click edit to see the magic), they all use various functions to fetch data from Wikidata. We all know that, no issues here either.

My concern is, if these global infoboxes are created, is converting heavily used infoboxes to something like Infobox Telescope, worth it? Won't the effort be wasted once the global templates are used? Rehman 14:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

My experience from svwiki is that templates designed like "Template:Infobox telescope" tends to be far too expensive for the servers to handle. The main infobox in sv:Stockholm (tätort) cannot be rendered in that way. I get a timeout halfway through the template. I am currently working on another solution, which tries to minimize the number of times you have to send questions to Wikidata. In sv:Användare:Innocent bystander/sandlåda you can see the progress! The work we do today, makes us learn more about how we in the best way can design templates and modules. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
work is starting on supporting global templates – I must have missed the email, interesting. Of course, it is worth. Larger communities tend to develop their own tools that fit their requirements, whereas smaller communities are the ones that will benefit from centralised tools. And I doubt that all infoboxes will be (and can be) converted to global infoboxes that all communities would approve.
For instance, cswiki uses a single module for fetching Wikidata and a ideally single template for rendering. Most infoboxes are as simple as this one, so not much work would be wasted in that case. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, User:Innocent bystander and User:Matěj Suchánek. I'm referring to adding Wikidata support to larger templates like en:Template:Infobox power station. Following up on responses that I received on Facebook by Mike and Asaf, and looking at Amir's proposal at Meta, I understand that these templates are most likely to be hosted on Meta. Since it is highly unlikely that they'll be on Wikidata, part or all of the coding of these global templates may/will be taken from the English Wikipedia (if it is the most polished wikidata-supported template at that time, of course). This means it is worth adding Wikidata support to more infoboxes, which is the answer to my initial question!
With regards to wikidata-supported templates putting too much pressure on the servers, I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on that. Perhaps someone who knows about that subject can comment? Regardless, thank you everyone for your responses. That was really bothering me, and was pushing me away from putting effort on working on such templates. Cheers! Rehman 02:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the solution provided in "Template:Infobox telescope" is that you have to use functions like "mw.wikibase.getEntityObject()" at least once for every parameter in the template. In reality you have to fetch information from several properties in several items for each parameter. Just to get the area of a city you have to use "mw.wikibase.getEntityObject()" once for the number, once for the unit, once for the date (even if there is one or not) and once for the reference. And no matter if the reference has an item of its own, you have to use arbitrary access several times for each part of the reference. Since the same reference often is used several times in one item, there are workable solutions for that too, but they are not implemented yet. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
One large problem with these Wikidata-based templates is that the Wikidata-community has completely different opinions than the local community about what should be added to a parameter in a template/property. If somebody is an artist and an truckdriver, we here add both under "occupation". But the opinion on svwiki is that you are not "notable" as truckdriver, therefor you should not add that to a template. And what a "position held" is, differs in opinion between Wikidata and Wikipedia. A 19th century Swedish politician had normally not that as an occupation. It was something he did at his spare time. In fact, the Swedish riksdag still has a long holiday in the summer, to allow the farmers in the riksdag to manage their fields and livestock. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Right. With increasing integration between the projects, the differences in information models between projects will become a bigger and bigger problem. Sharing data is easy (it's a primarily technical problem), but sharing information requires agreeing on the models of that information. Absent compatible information models, every single language Wikipedia will need local logic (template code) to do something with "occupation = truckdriver" in order to be able to use data from Wikidata. I see a lot of people working on things like adding twelve million records of data. Is anyone working on the information models? --Xover (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Related (had wanted to ask this a long time before, but...). Could somebody clarify one thing? If I have Wikidata module and I invoke it several times in one infobox, there is or there is not some cashing? I mean, Wikidata object will be called everytime as a new one, or in second, third etc. time it will read information, that it had from first invoking. Grr... Not very technically correct, but I hope that at least somebody got the idea. --Edgars2007 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

If it could be implemented, it would be a good idea, but it does not look like that is the case today. (I have no other insight but from editing templates and modules.) As I said, I am working on a workaround at sv:Modul:Sandlådan/Innocent bystander/WD2 which invoke the main item 'once and store the entity in a variable inside the module. The main template used here is edited in LUA-code instead of wikicode. Instead of using 1,6 seconds of CPU time, I use 0,5 seconds. My hope is that I can reduce that time even further by keeping record of the references used. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
It's essential to have already loaded data cached. So yes, this kind of cache is working. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Rehman, which email are you talking about? Should you convert templates? I'd say "no", especially if there are other things that you can do. Not so much because the effort will be wasted when global templates be usable. I don't know when will they be usable, and in what form.

It's more because this "conversion" work is done by people on smaller wikis, who could be doing something that these wikis need more. For example, translate articles into these languages. Theoretically, anybody who knows wiki syntax well can make infobox templates without knowing any other languages; precisely because of this templates could and should be global. But people who know the languages in which smaller wikis are written have special knowledge - the language itself! Whenever possible, the application of that special knowledge should be prioritized over template-making.

And I'd say a similar thing about people who only know English: Instead of "helping" smaller wikis with copying templates, how about helping them in an even more fundamental way and join the project to create global templates? You can do it by contributing to the discussion about the project, proposing a technical architecture and implementing it.

Yes, it's hard, but it will be a major change that will take an enormous burden away from people who spend so much time tinkering with templates. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Amir. Thanks for your reply. I was referring to your email in which the linked Meta page was mentioned. Until I relocated that email recently (after posting the above), it seems that I have misinterpreted it as an established project to be carried out soon. Regardless, I look forward to assisting in that initiative wherever I can. Kind regards, Rehman 22:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, As I start from now in this discussion, let me explain the cawiki experience. Without know anything about the idea of having a "global infoboxes", in cawiki we started .-two years ago- the proccess of integrate hundreds of infoboxes in 10-12 "core infoboxes" that manage any situation related with a big theme or topic. It means: person, territory (geographic or administrative), organizations (doesn't matter if it's a business, national organizations or polítical parties), etc. The reason we do that was related with using Wikidata. Put WD on infoboxes is not very difficult, however, when you have hundreds of similars but differents infoboxes, it becomes a huge duty, exemple: everyday WD create new properties usefull to be introduce in some infobox, the effort to update one o dozens of them, is very different. So, we choose to create a few but very powerfull infoboxes with full access to WD and provide to editors the most easy way to use: "Just write infobox xxxx at the beginning of the article and "all we know" will show automaticly and you don't have to bother anymore". But, together with this simplicity, it must incorporate and respond to the legacy of the manual parameters. On the way we developed other improvements, not directly related to WD, but essential when dealing with so important "upgrade". The most spectacular improvement has been changing map management from "static" based on images (location map xxxx) to "dynamic maps" created depending on WD coordinates. The result has been amazing. Nowadays, 310.000 articles, almost 60% of all cawiki entries have one of these infoboxes; 48% attended just with the 7 most populars. I invite you to see a summary of capabilities and results and our migration roadmap. I hope our experience could be usefull for all of you, specially for small (as we are) wikipedies. Thanks, --Amadalvarez (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

how to convert collection of strings to wikidata ids?

I tried "WIKIDATAQID" but it is very primitive and doesn't respect other items.

Can OpenRefine (Q5583871) do this?

It would be good to keep track on tools for this. d1g (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're somewhat constrained that a single string may not be unique enough to map to exactly one QID. So are you looking for a tool that will grab all the possible matches, and let you choose in some way? -- Fuzheado (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: Tool should respect all strings and pick 1 or more groups for them
This is slightly easier than named-entity recognition (Q403574) because it isn't a complex text, but exact target strings.
I don't know which keywords to use for "respect all items" d1g (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Self-referencing

Hi all,

From time to time, I'm checking the self-referencing links (?itemA ?propertyX ?itemA). Most of the time, I just revert the wrong edit and if it's possible and convenient, I add a correct value instead, but in some rare cases I'm not sure what to do.

For example for child (P40) (and all or given name (P735), the mistake is obvious and the confusion can easily be fixed.

But what cases about country (P17) or capital (P36)? What should we dot here? 

SELECT ?x ?xLabel WHERE {
  ?x wdt:P36 ?x.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it!

Is there other properties where self-referencing links are exceptionally « correct » ? (or even just specific weird cases like Tree That Owns Itself (Q1421130)).

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

VIGNERON, I fixed "Schaan". Municipality VS municipal seat. Cebuano WP had both, so there were already two items. 92.226.138.192 15:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense undetected for 7 months

The item Q2474310 which had country=Georgia was an instanceOf=districtOfIsrael from 2016-12-29 until today [1]. Are there no consistency checks? The user that implemented the change seems to have replaced all "instanceOf=municipality of Georgia" with wrong claims.... 92.226.138.192 13:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The French labels of the items used for instance of (P31) could be confusing. People often don't read the description. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Vandal or misguided, but the key is : no consistency checks. 92.226.138.192 15:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
You could write complex constraints using SPARQL.
like this one
d1g (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Q30044275

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172592

Hi, I don't know that it is a right place to stay that, but a interwiki Q30044275 has a problem and don't show that the pt article is good. Mr. Fulano (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is phab:T172592. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

How can a paleontology enthusiast contribute to Wikidata?

Hey everyone. I'm one of the more active members at Wikiproject Paleontology on Wikipedia, and I've been curious about this place for a long time. I was wondering how or if I could contribute to Wikidata as a paleontology enthusiast, and conversely what WikiData has to offer to the coverage of paleontology on other Wikimedia projects and to the paleontological community more broadly. Abyssal (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Abyssal: Hi! For taxonomic information we centralize efforts at Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy. If you think a paleontology Wikiproject should also exist on Wikidata you are welcome to start one. Hell Creek Formation (Q917642) has examples of how to connect stratigraphic units with fossils that they contain. We also try to give Fossilworks taxon ID (P842) to all the fossils. Let me know if you need any other info. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Tobias1984:Thanks for the quick reply. I recognize your username. :) Would first appearance data and the boundaries of geologic periods have a place on Wikidata? Abyssal (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
From the taxonomic viewpoint we are lacking tons of good literature references, Abyssal --Succu (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Welcome at Wikidata! There are of course plenty of things to do, and it is pretty common to start as a topical specialist in a given field, and broaden the scope of contributions with time – if one is interested to do so. This way one gets a good idea of how things are going here. It is advisable to look for experienced collegues in the WikiProjects Category, and to decide whether you’d like to support some existing efforts, and/or try something else nobody else is doing yet.
You can expect to find items about entities that have Wikipedia articles, but typically a bit more of then than you find in the large Wikipedias (since Wikidata covers all entities of, say, paleontology that are present in the entire Wikimedia universe). Our goal are, in practice, more or less twofold:
  1. On the one hand each individual item provides structured data that the connected sitelinks (Wikipedia articles) and other related articles can re-use. This centralizes information, eventually also the references for each fact, and of course interwiki links. Particularly smaller language editions with less workforce benefit from that (bigger ones are still somewhat reluctant to do so). The structured nature and the centralization make it also much easier to spot and correct inconsistencies, mistakes, etc. of individual data.
  2. On the other hand, Wikidata aims to be a valuable project beyond plain Wikipedia support. For that goal, you’d rather look at the content from another than the single item perspective: give me information about all important paleontologists; or about all extinct animals, and so on. For that goal you wouldn’t aim to make a couple of showcase items, you merely want to improve all relevant items to a higher base level. It is particularly important to identify each item exactly, this is what we do by linking them to external databases via identifiers on a large scale.
Both goals are not contradicting at all (except for the fact that they compete for your and our attention).
As a Wikipedia author you will probably not be confident with a couple of Wikidata-specific processes here in this project. However, policies and guidelines as well as hierarchies are much simpler than in the large Wikipedias, which allows quick learning. It is probably not useful to elaborate too much here, but you are invited to ask in case of questions (on this page or specific authors/projects).
Hope there will be other replies as well. Mine became pretty general now, and a bit lengthy. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Abyssal: There is temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524) (e.g. Hystricomorpha (Q532250)) which can be used to indicate the start and end of deposition of a unit, but also the range of a fossil. Not everything is worked out yet, so any input you have is valuable. --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Abyssal: Further to the above good answers, you can also help by adding or expanding items about notable paleontologists, paleontology journals and papers, and paleontology organisations and their awards. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about structure and properties

Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties Everyone who interest and can help, please say your opinion. Xaris333 (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

SEO is poor, isn't?

Is it possible to fix it with Extension:WikiSEO or another extension? We don't have any page-specific HTML-keywords e.g. here - is it right or wrong now? d1g (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that current indexing of Wikidata is pretty poor. Google says only 7,000,000 pages are indexed of over 30 million items. I remember that Google indexes English Wikipedia new pages quickly (I think they "scrape" the newpages special pages). Couldn't they do the same for Wikidata? Emijrp (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Do we want search engines to be sending people to Wikidata edit pages? - PKM (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Good note, at least pages in view mode. I want to see my and work of others in search results. d1g (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
SEO is really poor, I can get my other (less complete) guide along top 10 results, but not Wikidata:SPARQL tutorial d1g (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: The SEO of Wikidata is poor because it was >30,000,000 pages and relatively little incoming links. It's not an issue that can be solved by simply installing an extension. ChristianKl (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the difference between floruit (P1317) and work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032)?

I can not figure out the difference between work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032) pair and floruit (P1317), especially if floruit (P1317) is using start time (P580)/end time (P582). In the past I was using floruit (P1317) for statements like "19-th century" or "circa 1850" and work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032) when more precise dates were known. But now I see that items like Guillaume II Le Roy (Q19544724) is using floruit (P1317) the way I would use work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032). So is there a difference between concept of "work period" and en:Floruit which indicates the time when someone "flourished" or has been active? --Jarekt (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

OK so we use work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032) for dates when an person was working and we use en:Floruit when a person was alive or active working. The 2 terms seem to have very large overlap especially since all we know about many of the artist is their work. --Jarekt (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
hello all...
floruit (P1317) was created first for floruit, and at the time, the necessity for a period of time was not seen as important...
then, the possibility to give a fork period of time for floruit lead to the creation of work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032), especially, because of Commons and wikisource specific needs (see discussion at the time)
now, we tend to use work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032) when a period of work is known... and only floruit (P1317) when we know that 'at that time', the person was alive (or "floruit") without knowing the full period of work (for example, we know that an author published a book in 1918, but we have no info about begining/end of the work period....
some contributors also use floruit (P1317) in reference for life dates... (x date of death > 1918, since floruit (P1317) in 1918....)
in fact, floruit (P1317) and work period (start) (P2031)/work period (end) (P2032) are very much overlapping, because floruit (P1317) should always be somewhere between work period (start) (P2031) and work period (end) (P2032) ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

repeated aliases

If a certain alias already exists in a certain language, it is necessary, indifferent or incorrect to repeat it in other languages ? exemple--JotaCartas (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The languages are independent of each other. At best you focus on finding appropriate aliases for the languages in which you are fluent. ChristianKl (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
as languages are independant, you must repeat the alias you want to use in your language, but don't auto-copy aliases from all languages systematically ;) --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Any alias added to English is available to any other language because English is a fallback for all languages. So, it is only necessary to add aliases which are specific for every language. Emijrp (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Presenting the new EveryPolitician Community manager

Hi everybody! I'm Sannita (talk • contribs • logs), probably you already saw me around as an admin and contributor, but today I'd like to introduce myself as the new EveryPolitician project Community manager. :)

EveryPolitician is a mySociety (Q10851773) project, currently funded by Wikimedia Foundation, that aims to integrate data with the EveryPolitician project and/or other reliable sources, as well as to come up with a suitable structure within Wikidata to encourage consistency of modelling of political data. My main task will be to involve people to become active on Wikidata, to learn how to use the various tools we already have (from gadgets to external tools such as QuickStatements, Mix 'n' Match, PetScan, and so on) and to actively reuse data from the project to build New Fantastic Tools™.

So, if you're interested in sorting out electoral/political data from your home country, or define data models to help other users compiling this kind of items, or you have an idea about how to visualise data, just {{Ping}} me, and I'll be glad to help. :) We're also planning events to add, fix, enrich and reuse data - the very first will be held in London after Wikimania, and I really hope to come back to you with more info ASAP.

Also, I'll be around at Wikimania all week, so feel free to tap me on the shoulder if you wish. :) --Sannita (MySociety) (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sannita (MySociety): What level of government does this project intend to cover, and how far down into the hierarchy? Obviously nations would be covered, but what about states, provinces, cities, towns, etc.? Is it intended to only cover monarchs and elected officials, or some appointed officials too?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc3s5h (talk • contribs).
For the time being, we'll keep mostly at national level, covering Heads of State/Government, Ministers, and MPs, and tentatively first-level divisions. This will depend also on the data we can get from other sources (also from ones you can suggest us), so we'd also like to help document some sort of a general data model for the different cases, that can be further adapted later for every country, if needed. Hope I answered your question. :) --Sannita (MySociety) (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sannita: Congratulations by your new role. I find by chance this discussion and I didn't know of the Wikidata:EveryPolitician project. It will be usefull to me, cause recently I created an infobox to show any level of administrative territory (state, region, municipality, etc.). Beside the population, coordinates, and so, it includes info related whit the government of the unit. One of the problems I had (and not solved yet) is how to known the political representation on the chamber (not only state, but municipality, for instance; and not only the governement membres, but the whole elected people) at the present moment. Obviously, a person could be member of political party (P102), but an organitzation doesn't have "member count (P2124) by each party in each legislature". If I understand, you create an item for each composition of cabinet (each government team, each legislature,...) with members and its qualifiers. So the chronological/historical information is not hold on the institution item, but in the successive governments items that are related with the institution. Two questions: Should the institution item have a property pointing to the present government ? Or, how to know fast and easy, what's the present government of an institution?. Second one: Could it be in the individual cabinet item a breakdonw by political parties with total of members ?, How to build it ?. Just one more: Where is the best place to ping you to have this kind of specific discussions ?. Thanks a lot, --Amadalvarez (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sannita (MySociety): congrats for the job and godspeed for this wonderful task. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
@Amadalvarez: Wow, that's a lot of questions. :D I'm not sure I can address all of that, nor that I should be the one to answer them all. Actually, what I found out is that we need to have a bit of a discussion about cabinets and how to represent them on Wikidata: for one, I don't think it is necessary at the time to show the cabinet, we can limit (as we are doing now) to head of Government/State, also because we still need to find a way to keep them updated, but for the future it may be a good point to raise. About the breakdown of parties that compose a cabinet, I think it is a good idea, but we need also to take into consideration how to represent those parties who don't have representation in the cabinet, but support it nonetheless - nothing impossible, it's just something that crossed my mind. :) As for the place to discuss, I'll be leaving for Wikimania tomorrow, but I plan to use some of my time there to try to propose and set up a Wikiproject for politics. I think it's time to coordinate the several national efforts into something bigger, while keeping the national approach to address the specific things that may arise (I do know how much different systems can be... "different"). Hope you'll join the party. :)
@Sannita (MySociety):I'm very sorry, but I won't be in Wikimania, but I'll go to WikidataCon in Berlin where I apply for a speech about "core infoboxes full WD powered". However, when I talked about a "place to discuss", I mean where are concentrate the discussions about the project for the present phases and for the futures topics as those I introduce. Anyway, I'm not in a hurry. Keep in contact about the evolution is enough to me. Thanks & have a good Wikimania ! --Amadalvarez (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
@VIGNERON: Merci bien. :) Sannita (MySociety) (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

'No value' casuing constraint violation

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172130
Resolved

Should 'no value' be causing a constraint violation for "format", as seen here? I've not encountered that before, is it a new phenomenon? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

IMHO format constraints should not be applied to somevalue (aka unknown value) and novalue claims. The claim in question is fairly new, so I can't tell whether there was a change or not. If there was a change, it could be related to the new constraints infrastructure with claims on the properties. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Nikki actually brought his up a week ago on IRC (see phab:T172130), and with the next software deployment, format and other constraint types that look at the value will no longer report a constraint violation on no value Help or unknown value Help in the gadget (though KrBot’s database reports might behave differently). --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. @Ivan A. Krestinin: for comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
KrBot interprets novalue and somevalue as empty string. So this change makes such values acceptable. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge with quickstatements don't work?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172649
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T127213

There is some problem with merge in quickstatements? I found a lot of incomplete merge, you can see a little list in the box. Maybe is better lock until it isn't fix? @Magnus Manske:

--ValterVB (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I observed the same recently, since a week or so User:MisterSynergy/sysop/empty items is full of incomplete mergers, much more than usual. I asked an editor who created many of those cases, and they claim to use the merge gadget for merging. Does anyone know what's on here? —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Some example without quickstatements:
  1. Q10015967
  2. Q7854814
  3. Q10072398
  4. Q10108161
  5. Q10147577
  6. Q10171493
  7. Q10171555
  8. Q10248482
  9. Q12087821

--ValterVB (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Based on phab:T127213 seems that it will not be fixed soon, sadly... The problem is in API as I understand. It doesn't perform a complete merge if there are merged two rich items, e.g. with overlapping descriptions, and passing as argument ignoreconflicts=description or whatever else will not help here. As a workaround currently there should be defined and called one more function to clear and redirect the source item, but this is not really a solution. Much better would be to have a simple API option to tell it perform complete item merges (including clearing and redirecting where is needed) on server side, instead of hacking around to do this from clients. XXN, 12:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

КХЛ and KHL

Both are abbreviations at Q190001#P1813. I used the language tag "mul" as they can apply to several languages. Still, they can be differentiated by script. Should this be indicated in the language tag (e.g. mul-Latn or mul-Cyr, both not available yet) or with a qualifier (e.g. writing system)?
--- Jura 06:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Technically you are right. The problem is how does a query show the result? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a question about which of the two options to choose. Either can be "technically right" .. A query shows whatever is entered: the qualifier or the language tag.
    --- Jura 09:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
In the module we mainly use on svwiki, I have installed a function, that automagically prefer claims with qualifier "language:Swedish" or "script:Latin". See sv:Wikipedia:Sandlåda för Wikidata. I do not say that everybody have to follow, but I am quite pleased with how it works. It is mainly used for P558 (P558) and sometimes even for formatter URL (P1630). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be easy to include "mul-latn" for the first approach mentioned above.
--- Jura 10:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

A property for Google Places types

Would a property to represent Google Places types be useful, to represent items that match the terms in this list? It would be used similar to the P1282 property (although much smaller scope). If this sounds worthwhile I will create a formal property proposal. Pauljmackay (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

See also GeoNames feature code (P2452) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
No, every item is already here.
Places types aren't helpful, use P31. d1g (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #272

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


namespaces

Hi, I created MediaWiki non-main namespace (Q35252665) to have a overview of namespaces in Wikimedia projects. Now I am not sure wether using has part(s) (P527) is semantically correct and what would be an alternative for tagging this.

Second question: Is there a property to connect

--Bigbossfarin (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If we were treating items linked to Wikimedia project pages as items about Wikimedia project pages for all purposes, the property would be main subject (P921), from the project page item. Whether we should treat them that way is unclear. There are several potentially serious issues with doing that, including the slight possibility that there may be one day an article about one of the pages/policies in question, and then we'd have a problem with one item linking as normally to the pages about the topic, and another linking to the topic itself. Perhaps we should treat such items differently, and not try to add statements to them at all beyond one statement identifying it as outside the main knowledge tree. --Yair rand (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

What happens to claims pointing to redirected (merged) items?

I noticed earlier today that Q15303967 (which was "national archives") had been merged to national archives (Q2122214) (which had a couple of sitelinks to different languages) - I'm sure the merge was fine, but it seems to have left about 150 other items slightly broken, as they had been instance of (P31) Q15303967 (so for example, any constraint requiring P31/P279* organization (Q43229) now fails). Do we have any bots automatically fixing these item redirects when the redirected item was used in statements on other items? I've fixed a few of them by hand, but I was hoping that wouldn't be necessary for all of them? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We have a bot fixing these. Quite annoying when the merge is wrong and you find that out months later. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
When it's a mistake, can't you use Rollbot run through the time period in which the bot was "fixing" the particular item? --Yair rand (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Share your thoughts on the draft strategy direction

At the beginning of this year, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire people across the entire movement. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups have discussed and gave feedback on-wiki, in person, virtually, and through private surveys[strategy 1][strategy 2]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 3]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

In July, a group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team took on a task of synthesizing this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The first draft is ready. Please read, share, and discuss on the talk page. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize this direction through August.

  1. ↑ Cycle 1 synthesis report
  2. ↑ Cycle 2 synthesis report
  3. ↑ New Voices synthesis report

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Archiving of small talk pages

I think archiving talk pages like Wikidata talk:Autobiography (with 6 sections) is highly unwanted. Information that is still relevant gets more hidden this way. I also don't think it's practical to build a huge structure behind a page that is still nominated for deletion. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

6 section could be kept d1g (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree and I think it's confusing on small pages. It would make more sense to me to only archive topics when the page is large enough (e.g. keep the last n topics no matter how old they are). - Nikki (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

People killed in duels

How should we indicate that people were killed in duels? Item duel (Q191503) is not currently a valid value for manner of death (P1196), though it is used this way (notably in Alexander Hamilton (Q178903)). It could be argued that a duel is different from a homicide, depending on where and when the duel was fought. - PKM (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Our various death properties don't quite cover this - there isn't really a property for "context" or "circumstance", so we also have trouble expressing "was executed" or "was killed in X event" (eg a battle or an air crash). We could use a "significant event" qualifier but that doesn't quite seem right. A new property might be the way forward. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I like that idea; it might also cover "presumed dead" situations I've struggled with such as "lost at sea". What other circumstances could we include here? - PKM (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Super Cup

1) What is a super cup? For example, Supercopa de España (Q485997)

or

or something else.

For P279 is easy,

I am asking about the competition, not competition's specific years like 2016 Supercopa de España (Q20993924).

2) What is 2016 Supercopa de España (Q20993924)?

Are both correct? Xaris333 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

2. both make sense, first is about one match, second is about series. Exact properties could be changed over time. d1g (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
For (1) I would just use P279 since this is not a specific cup, but a class of cups. For (2) I would prefer over if Supercopa de España (Q485997) is not a season (Q27020041). Danmichaelo (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


@Jura1:, @ArthurPSmith:, @D1gggg:, @XXN:, @Danmichaelo:, So,

⟨ EFL Cup (Q11152)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ league cup (Q1824674)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩


and

and

and


We also have association football competition (Q1478437). Υου can use this for the international tournaments (I don't understand the language of the links of the item), like FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champions League etc. And all the other above for national competition.

Xaris333 (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333, XXN: I'm just confused about association football competition (Q34186974) and association football competition (Q1478437). It looks to me like these can be merged (The German "Turnier" can be translated as "competition", we have a similar word "turnering" in Norwegian). Danmichaelo (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@Danmichaelo: I can't speak German. But by google translating the article I get "They are deducted from football competitions which are decentralized and played over a longer period of time (eg national championships)." and "According to the origin of the participating teams, national, regional, continental and global tournaments can be distinguished. Distinctions are also possible afterwards, whether club, national or other teams or men or women teams participate in a tournament. Special tournaments are also available for teams whose players have not reached a certain age (U ... -selections) as well as for amateur teams."
So association football competition (Q34186974) and association football competition (Q1478437) are not the same. association football competition (Q1478437) don't include national championships. association football competition (Q34186974) include every association football competition. And all their example are about international cups. I am confused too. The dutch article is not helping. Is refers about cups (national and international). Xaris333 (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I, as well, don't speak German or Dutch so I'm not sure if is OK to merge these items (on the basis of the 'de'- and 'nl'- wiki articles). But, in football exists some kind of distinct tournaments - unofficial & short, for which might be necessary to have an item (or not?). E.g. Jordan Tournament 1992, Nehru Cup 1993, Kirin Cup 1993, E.C.O. (Economic Cooperation Organisation) Cup 1993. XXN, 20:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Well those are International football association cup competitions. There are 2 types: those which are for clubs (like UEFA Champions League (Q18756)) and those which are for national teams (like UEFA European Championship (Q260858)). Xaris333 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Right, seems like «Fußballwettbewerb» (focusing on German now) is used for slightly larger or more decentralized competitions than «Fußballturnier», but on the other hand de:Fußballturnier is a member of Category:Association football competitions (Q7015591) and Fußballwettbewerb is a redirect to de:Fußballturnier, so not sure if the items can be kept apart without confusion(?) The best would be to get feedback from someone familiar with German football, perhaps Steak? Danmichaelo (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Because I was pinged: It is correct that often "competition" and "tournament" are used as synonyms. But strictly speaking they are not the same. The definition in de:Fußballturnier states that a "Turnier" is limited to a quite short time and centralized to one city or one country (e.g. a world cup). On the other side, competitions ("Wettbewerb") last longer and are played in many venues (e.g. world cup qualifiers). So these items should not be merged. Steak (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Should be subclasses, not instances. Any premier league instance (say this year championship) is a championship. Hence the relationship is a « subclass of » one, per definition of subclass of. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

That's how I think is the structure of football competitions and football teams.

association football (Q2736) association football competition (Q34186974) national association football competition (Q34548322) association football league (Q15991303) (like Premier League (Q9448))
national association football cup (Q34262376) (like FA Cup (Q11151))
league cup (Q1824674) (like EFL Cup (Q11152))
national association football supercup (Q34262807) (like FA Community Shield (Q189188))
international association football competition (Q34548368) international association football clubs competition (Q34548345) international association football clubs cup (Q34542757) (like UEFA Champions League (Q18756))
international association football clubs super cup (Q34542788) (like UEFA Super Cup (Q484028))
international association football national teams competition (Q34542827) (like UEFA European Championship (Q260858))
association football club (Q476028) association football team (Q15944511) (like FC Barcelona (Q7156))
women's association football team (Q28140340) (like FC Barcelona Femení (Q522899))
association football academy (like FC Barcelona Juvenil A (Q13562063))
national association football team (Q6979593) national association football men's team (like Spain men's national football team (Q42267))
national association football women's team (like Spain women's national association football team (Q847623))

It's not perfect. For example, for all items of association football competition (Q34186974) you can't know if it a men or a women competition (can be solve by using women's association football (Q606060)). And an item may instance of (P31) association football club (Q476028), association football team (Q15944511) and association football academy the same time. In my opinion association football club (Q476028) shoulb be use only as a class of association football team (Q15944511), women's association football team (Q28140340) and academies and not with instance of (P31) at a team's item. And still there is no place for association football competition (Q1478437). Xaris333 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

These are all classes of competitions. I advocate for a long time now for ways to describe classes in term of their instances properties. I proposed, although it’s an unsatisfactory solution, to use « has quality » to describe the properties and the instances of a class : For example the «men or woman» competition class case could be solved by :
*
⟨ French national female football championship ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ football competition ⟩
*
⟨ French national female football championship ⟩ has quality Search ⟨ values in qualifier ⟩
participant class Search ⟨ adult female ⟩
about participant class : I think I proposed this property but it was rejected, not sure why that would mean that all French national female football championship’s instances (say 2017–18 Division 1 Féminine (Q30174562)  View with Reasonator View with SQID, the last one) is a football competition with adult female participant.
this mechanism could be used in a vastly larger set of usecases … everywhere actually. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@TomT0m: We can solve the problem with this way:

⟨ French national female football championship ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ association football league (Q15991303)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
⟨ French national female football championship ⟩ sport (P641) View with SQID ⟨ women's association football (Q606060)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩


Another "problem" is the use of the word national. For example, by "national association football league" I mean the league that take place in a country. This league is either a national one (clubs of all the country can take place), or local (clubs of one part of the country can take place).

i don't think we need separate items for this two (for example an item "local association football league"). But I believe the word national may confuse many users. I have changed the description to "league of association football that take place across a country or to a local area of a country". Xaris333 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: You don’t seem to be aware of the difference between instance of (P31) View with SQID and subclass of (P279). Please see Help:BMP - a document as old as Wikidata - and Help:Classification. Also en:Is a (a synonym of « subclass of »). All this makes
⟨ French national female football championship ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ association football league (Q15991303)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩
incorrect as « French national female football championship » is definitely not a single championship … it’s one championship per year. It’s a class of championship with one occurence (instance) every year. It’s very important that we agree on something as basic. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

So, @TomT0m:

Is that what do you mean? I don't disagree with this. We must change property P31 with P279 but this is not a problem. If all user agree of course. Xaris333 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: :Yep. We don’t have to agree on all the statements of that type, that would be exhausting. We have to agree on the principles that we implement. Then we just have to check wether or not statements (and not only on this case) meet those principle. This makes some choices natural and makes our model more predictible. Note that the principles in Help:Classification make sports season of league or competition (P3450) View with SQID just a special case of instance of (P31), the reason why I’m against :
⟨ 2017–18 Division 1 Féminine (Q30174562)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ instance of (P31) View with SQID ⟨ French national female football championship ⟩
. Note that actually we have so this statement may be more a statement that applies to the championship instances than on the class. On the other hand, there may be statements who apply to the class itself but not to the instances - so we must have a way to discriminate the statements that applies to the instances than statements that applies to the class. For example if a chemical element is a class of atoms, the abundancy in the universe is not a property of a single atom. That’s why I propose the has quality Search trick : the « has quality » statements applies to each of the instances, while the plain one applies to the class. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@TomT0m: last few days we are changing the property to be like that:

⟨ 2017–18 Division 1 Féminine (Q30174562)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ sports season of league or competition (P3450) View with SQID ⟨ French national female football championship ⟩

Do you think we must also have

⟨ 2017–18 Division 1 Féminine (Q30174562)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ subclass of (P279) View with SQID ⟨ French national female football championship ⟩

 ?

Xaris333 (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Is there a proper definition of « sport season » ? If its a kind of recurring competition then we have « French national female football championship » that is a subclass of « sport season ». Then we just don’t need .
⟨ 2017–18 Division 1 Féminine (Q30174562)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ sports season of league or competition (P3450) View with SQID ⟨ French national female football championship ⟩
is useless. All of this is just a case of recurring events so the advantages of that scheme is that it’s not restricted to sport - or even to events recurring every year. (« sport season » subclass of « recurring event », specialized for sport competition recurring every year.
On the « sport season » definition, my understanding would be that a season is the set of all events in a sport between two summer breaks … which does not fit with that usage. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Xaris333 (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: On what ? A little development would help justify our collective choice and rationalize our model. A little grounding on clear definition will help building a common language that make sense whichever your cultural background is. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TomT0m: Maybe we should use a new page about all these subjects: competitions, leagues, teams. Perhaps a subpage of Wikidata:WikiProject Sports. There are many issues to discuss as a community. With examples about everything. I have many questions and suggestions. Especially about association football. Maybe a subpage of Wikidata:WikiProject Association football will be better. Do you agree? Xaris333 (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Not really, as explained I think our problem here is not specific to sport and our thinking is valuable for recurring events. I would be OK for a project « recurring event » that would work in cooperation with the project sport. (edit conflict) even worse if we split each sport for stuffs that are common for all. Not opposed to such a project « association football » but restricted for stuffs that are really specific to it. That is not recurring competitions … author  TomT0m / talk page 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
On «sport season» Please read the different versions of wikipedias season (Q27020041)  View with Reasonator View with SQID … My observations is that the « season » notion has US specificities, is polysemic and that the articles are vastly unsourced. A poor ground for a model, or a recipe for problems. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TomT0m: You don't want a general discussion with all topic? Ok. Is your opinion. I will start one in Wikidata:WikiProject Association football for the users that are interesting. I can't talk for so many issues in different place anymore. Some agree with some properties/items, some disagree. We really need to agree and to organize the items. We need clear structure and guidelines. Now, everyone just add what he/she believes. There is a big mess. Xaris333 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: It’s easier to manage a huge mess if we solve the same problems consistently across wikiproject. I identified a subproblem that is relevant for all sports as well as a lot of other fields. We also have global sound principles = predictible behavior = less mess = less beliefs and more facts. Better take advantage of this. Hope that the association football team will participate in WikiProject Recurring events and help to build guidelines for recurring events and competition for everyone :p . author  TomT0m / talk page 12:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If you aggree to a minimal properties about competitions/seasons/teams of football, we can generalize to other similar sports. Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties Xaris333 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: To agree to a minimal set of properties, I’d have to acknowledge they are needed. I don’t think so, per my previous messages. It’s just a matter of type of competition occuring every year. I think the « season » notion is not really useful and is more a matter of day to day speach and do not add any information compared to « type of competition occuring every year ». With this reasoning, no reason to add a property if we don’t win anything, it’s added work for no good reason. So … what are we supposed to gain ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

i%author  TomT0m / talk page 13:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TomT0m: you can write your opinion there, not under a Super Cup item discussion. Look, may be no one will participated. If so, I will stop trying to organize the items and the properties. If you don't have a guide, is useless. Everyone will do what ever he want. Say your opinion there if you want. You don't have to of course. Please Assume good faith for my actions. I just want to improve Wikidata, even a little bit. I don't think that all my opinions are corrects. That's why always I am asking the community, even for little things. And I have asked community so many times about what a specific league is. Which property (P31, P279) and what item to add. Is so confusing. I will stop the conversation here. Thanks for your time. Xaris333 (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Good faith is totally out of the equation. I’ll work on recurring events first, ping for your opinion, then we’ll talk about super cup. Imho a « supercup » is just a (recurring) competition that has criteria to compete into. We have to focus on criteria to select the competition participants. Here the competition notion helps … the « season » notion is cumbersome. Stay tuned. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: To be more precise, a « one match » competitions. I propose

<Premier League (Q9448)> instance of (P31) < national association football league (Q15991303)>

  • "< Premier League (Q9448)> instance of (P31) < national association football league (Q15991303)>" mentioned above seems fine. I don't quite get when this should have become a class. I don't think there are multiple "Premier League (Q9448)". Please note that I added the English text of the items. This to avoid any confusion.
    Maybe there is a better concept whereof we can see Q9448 as an instance thereof. I'm interested in suggestions. If you are responding with templates, please state the language of the label you are focusing on, this to avoid any confusion.
    --- Jura 10:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
We’re discussing this on the other page now. The key issue on this is the definition of a « league ». author  TomT0m / talk page 13:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a definition where a league isn't an instance of a league. As this point isn't discussed at the other page. Let's finish it here.
    --- Jura 15:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

My opinion:

For every kind of competition (like Cup, Super Cup, National teams competition etc, see the table above) we are using the same structure. Xaris333 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What labels are you using for Q15991303? English?
--- Jura 16:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
national association football league, as you said. Xaris333 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It just one league .. the same since 1992. I think we should use P31.
--- Jura 04:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
So some users believe we should use P31 and some others P279. Isn't there any guide that would help us decide which is the appropriate one? Xaris333 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The property description of P31 can help: "that class of which this subject is a particular example and member. (Subject typically an individual member with Proper Name label.)"
--- Jura 06:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I am ok with that explanation. Xaris333 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, « league » is also a subclass of competition. But 2016–17 Ligue 1 (Q22683328) is a competition. So this means that 2016–17 Ligue 1 (Q22683328) is an instance of league, according to current wikidata statement. What you need to understand the problem is a more complete help page on P31 and P279 : Help:Classification and to understand there is a mixup into 2 meanings of « league » : the league as an organisation and the league as a competition. That point is discussed there. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Ligue 1 (Q13394) is a league. 2016–17 Ligue 1 (Q22683328) is one season of that league.

Xaris333 (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with that last list, but even if it's possible that Premier League (Q9448) could also have some P279 statement, I don't think this is relevant when discussing Premier League ([Q9448]]) as a league (Q15991303). Maybe it could also be an instance of something else? Any suggestions.
--- Jura 13:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for your time. Well, I have tried. Another failure. We will never agree about the structure about those items. Everyone will continue add what ever he/she wants. I will continue the same way. Nobody cares enough. Everyone it trying to impose his/her opinion. That are wikidata? A huge amount of mess that users don't care? I was ready to help, to spent many hours/days/months to correct all items. But without an acceptable guide, that would be useless. I am not an expert about many thinks in wikidata, sometimes English language that use is difficult for me, some definitions are not clear to me, but I really have tried. More expert user were not so willing to solve the problems.

All problems I have found are summarized on Wikidata:WikiProject Association football/Discussion about properties. Maybe in the future someone will use use them. Thanks again. Xaris333 (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I was under the impression that it moved ahead quite far. Mainly thanks to you. The whole things seems to get much more consistent. I don't think it needs to be fully spelled out. There is always some oddity we hadn't thought of before. Besides .. in sparql ?item (wdt:P31 | wdt:P279 ) wd:Q15991303 could get you the same result as ?item wdt:P279 wd:Q15991303 .. "competition" in this context seems to be problematic as it could be a match, a season, a league, a league system .. etc. For those who like that, maybe we could just leave subclasses of that in parallel.
    --- Jura 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Jura1, so many discussions about all those properties, you can't find just one that all agree. Everytime there are user/users with a total different opinion about structure, properties, items. Everytime some users stops talking, everytime discussions are stopped without a final solution. Even for teams that might be the easiest category, there are many different opinions. It's disappointing. 16:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Fix geographical locations descriptions

Hi, My bot worked for many descriptions in "en,ru,de,el ,eo,es,et,fa, fr,it,nb,sco,nl" and some time the bot make mistakes in different languages.

I created a list for all the descriptions that my bot worked on it and I'm asking for help to check on them and correct them if needed. You can help in the following pages by confirm the correct description or by marking incorrect description and add the new correct description.

I find it impossible to provide any assistance because you fail to provide links to your edits and you fail to state the name of your bot. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The bot is User:Mr.Ibrahembot. However, this is not important for this request, since you just need to pick the languages you are proficient in, go through the corresponding list provided above (if there is any), and add corrections wherever necessary.
User:Mr. Ibrahem/fix descriptions/de is already corrected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ When I look at the table for English, this is how it begins:

en, en-ca, en-gb
type old description new description country
human settlement (Q486972) human settlement in Netherlands human settlement in the Netherlands Netherlands (Q55)

The new description isn't being applied to human settlement (Q486972), nor is it being applied to Netherlands (Q55), so I don't understand what items(s) this new description is being applied to. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The bot operator was a bit too eager and added descriptions with mistakes to plenty of items of different types, in plenty of languages (see above). They now ask proficient speakers for correct versions of the descriptions for a repair job. The “old description” values have been added to various sets of items (you can find them e.g. with the query service: en-desc: "lagoon in Dominican Republic"). However, for the request by User:Mr. Ibrahem this is not important to know. They only want to know which of the old descriptions are good, and which ones need a correction—both from a pure language point of view. You are not expected to correct the mistakes by yourself, this will be done by Mr. Ibrahem (or their bot). —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thank you user:MisterSynergy for explain that, I will correct the descriptions and it's okay if someone do that but I need to know the correct description to make sure I fix my bot mistakes. --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I've just updated the nl descriptions. Empty new description = no correction needed, non-empty new description = correction needed. Mbch331 (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Could we find a way to store "the"-countries somewhere?
--- Jura 17:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This would be quite difficult: In german we have "in", "im", "in den", "in der", "auf" (bei Inseln wie Malta), "auf den" (bei Inselgruppen wie den Bahamas). Steak (talk) 07:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I meant "the" in English.
--- Jura 15:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Why only English? Wikidata is a multilanguage project. Steak (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Personal interest. If you can do for other languages, no problem.
--- Jura 17:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be some non-trivial Wiktionary-based statement, I suppose. --Infovarius (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Cause of death categories

There is a discussion going on now with the category sorters on the en:Wikipedia. They determine what categories should exist, what categories should be deleted, what categories should be merged, what categories should be divided and put in some type of hierarchy. One problem with all this sorting, deleting, merging and creation of hierarchies is that they want to delete the biographical category Cause of death. I am a medical writer and I also like to speculate. This category could one day be a method of research to determine the relationship between a person, their ethnicity, their gender and a host of other characteristics that could be related to cause of death. This metric could have great potential if it were somehow incorporated into wikidata. I don't participate in adding content to wikidata as much as I would like, but I can certainly see the utility of allowing this sort of metric to this project. Any comments?

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Information about the cause of death can be stored in Wikidata via cause of death (P509). ChristianKl (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We are not tied to decisions taken in English Wikipedia. We can perfectly keep storing info about cause of death even if they decide to delete all related categories. Emijrp (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Is there a way to facilitate that from my end. Would this appear in a biographical entry? Does it exist now?
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The property is used in items like Ray Walston (Q692800). You are free to add data to other items. ChristianKl (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that we have both manner of death (P1196) and cause of death (P509), which can be used together as I have done on William Bowie (Q30717029). - PKM (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): You can see a list of items using the cause of death property here. Emijrp (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

P1027 does not show its label, is not found as "conferred by"

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T172776

I have added a few awards and they were conferred by the Botanical Society of America. I did not find the property and had to insert the P value in order to add the statement ... A bug? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Small hiccup caused by phab:T171460, should be fixed now. Only thing that left is probably cache issues. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not fixed but getting worse .. Yes, I did ?action=purge Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Same here, instanceOf "human" does not find Q5, and property P213 not found via "ISNI". Now added the data for Q35507464 via the entering Q5 and P213. See https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q35507464&action=history 77.179.172.25 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

GerardM, still broken for P213. Q5 sometimes is OK now. 77.179.172.25 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The suggested workaround per phab:T172776 is to make a minor edit to the property or item and then revert it. --Bamyers99 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In 33,000,000 items? They are lucky guys, aren't they! I have seen this in almost every item I have visited the last 24 hours. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As of now, 10x no label at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/List_of_properties/Top100&oldid=534097469 77.179.20.183 15:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Weird behaviour with P1773

Hello, I'm noticing a strange behaviour of P1773 (P1773) in entities such as Q27038031 as a qualifier. Label is not shown. Should it be used in a different way maybe? Is there any problem in its properties? Thanks! --Toniher (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

See #P1027 does not show its label, is not found as "conferred by". Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

SPARQL ORDER BY item - not by numeric nor by string value

"ORDER BY ?item" - what does that do? 

SELECT ?item ?isni
WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P213 ?isni
}
ORDER BY ?item
Try it!


yields 

114,0000000123530985
...
192,0000000072462811
20,0000000122989524
206,0000000078496895
207,000000012102267X
21,0000000122934507
212,0000000123587973
...
101942,0000000039979739
24427278,0000000116205025
991,0000000121462392

77.179.20.183 15:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what it yields, it yields a list of URI's (?item is a URI) which are ordered in normal string ordering. If you want numeric ordering you need to bind another variable that is just the numeric part of the id, and sort on that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith, how is order Q192 , Q20, Q101942 normal string ordering? 77.179.20.183 16:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the ordering does not work and the order is completely random since you are ordering bounds with "wd:" predicates which is undefined. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Matěj Suchánek, so one can add statements to Wikidata SPARQL service that have no effect without getting a warning or an error? Users might trust that their ORDER BY statements work by string sort, since the CSV download gives strings. Apart from that, how can one numerically sort by QID? 77.179.20.183 16:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
How do you know it has no effect? If a sorting algorithm (Q181593) is unstable, the order is arbitrary but different. Anyway, use BIND( xsd:integer( STRAFTER( STR( ?item ), STR( wd:Q ) ) ) AS ?qid ). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Matěj Suchánek, thanks a lot. I tested, and ORDER BY has an effect, and for the first items displayed it even had a reproducible order. Thanks for the BIND statement, works fine
SELECT ?qid ?isni
WHERE 
{
  BIND( xsd:integer( STRAFTER( STR( ?item ), STR( wd:Q ) ) ) AS ?qid )
  ?item wdt:P213 ?isni
}
ORDER BY ?qid
Try it!
I also tried to remove the Wikidata-specific whitespaces from the ISNI, but that results in an error if not limited. Limited to 100 works fine for me:
SELECT ?qid ?isni
WHERE 
{
  BIND( xsd:integer( STRAFTER( STR( ?item ), STR( wd:Q ) ) ) AS ?qid )
  BIND( replace(?wd_isni, " ", "") AS ?isni )
  ?item wdt:P213 ?wd_isni
}
ORDER BY ?qid
LIMIT 100
Try it!
77.179.20.183 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment 

wd:Q192 wd:Q20 wd:Q101942

aren't 3 strings, but 3 IRIs.

  • Without limit it would process 402507 statements, which would take too much time, so it would timeout.

 Question why do you need to process items in QID order? Is it something necessary to answer some question? d1g (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

d1g, privjet, the STRAFTER runs through without limit, and gave 409603 (not 402507). It is maybe not specifically necessary, I just prefer to have data ordered. I may like to compare two CSV downloads and simple diff tools might be better higlighting changes if the order does not change. Compare that with ListeriaBot which randomly rearranges lists, and it is hard to see with the MediaWiki diff function what actually has been changed. And to have data more compact, I want the ISNI in compact format. With ca. 9 millions ISNI issued that is 27 millions spaces that Wikidata adds :-(. 77.179.20.183 20:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
we have schema:dateModified
maybe we would have schema:dateCreated to sort for humans d1g (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
SELECT ?p ?v WHERE 
{
  wd:Q192 ?p ?v
}
Try it!

Delicate unmerge required Q30849 / Q14206373

Last December someone merged the project item page Q14206373 to blog (Q30849). It is going to need some delicate unpicking from someone who has a little time; or just revert back to the December 2016 versions of both pages, and let the rebuild go at its own pace. Thanks if someone has the time to resolve.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst - reverted, most of the edits to the blog-item were clean-up of the merge anyway. 77.179.20.183 02:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How to look up persons nationality?

Commons Creator page (Q24731821) use nationality and occupation fields to create phrases like Italian painter that describe people. Nationality on commons is encoded as 2-letter ISO 6116 code or as one of several "nationalities" that do not have a ISO code (like "English" or "Flemish", etc.). Nationality field roughly overlaps with country of citizenship (P27) property and my current approach was to look up ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (P297) of each country in country of citizenship (P27). That works for about 50% people, but unfortunately many country of citizenship (P27) properties link to items build for very specific period in history of a country and do not have ISO code. So how do I look up that Albrecht Dürer (Q5580) and Adolf Hitler (Q352) are "German" or "DE" ? --Jarekt (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt you can. The most direct path between Durer and Germany seems to be

But you cannot really use followed by (P156) in every case.

Beside, the handling of country of citizenship (P27) for older times in Wikidata does not seem to make much sense. I have never heard nor read that the country of citizenship of Durer was the Holy Roman Empire. --Zolo (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I just look and many of the identifier databases lists nationality for Albrecht Dürer (Q5580) as "German", see RKD or ULAN. Maybe we need a new "nationality" property to capture such metadata? But what kind of items should such property point to? We could have set of items for the nations (instance of (P31) nation (Q6266)), like China (Q29520) or Korea (Q18097) which are not the same as the current country. Unfortunately the wikipedia articles do not differentiate between nations and countries. For example Russia (Q159)'s inception (P571) is 862, 1917 and 1991, and en:Russia article about "Russian Federation" talk about thousand year history. --Jarekt (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt:
So it is enough to fill correct city
All "country" information would accumulate at city pages
d1g (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually there are two different issues:
  • which values should be used in country of citizenship (P27). There is no consensus even for seemingly simple cases like France in the 20th century, and it's much more complex for 15th century Germany. (I thought Nuremberg was a free city rather than part of Bavaria ? Either way, both "Nuremberg" and "Bavaria" sound better values than "Holy Roman Empire".)
  • It is commonly said (in respected sources) that Durer it German and Botticelli Italian. How do we indicate that. A new property ? Perhaps, but not sure about the label. Actually, we would even have any item to use as a value, as Germany (Q183) is supposed to be about an entity created in 1949. --Zolo (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • "Holy Roman Empire" is just wrong.
  • 19283 values in P27 correspond to wd:Q34266. Some countries (USA) don't need splits at all. France and Germany had a lot of wars, but we need to sort values eventually. d1g (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) d1g, The problem is that country boundaries, political systems and government types are in constant flux. Some items for countries seem to be only for the current iteration, some for all iterations and some for both. Yesterday I had to revert a whole bunch of edits I made to P27 properties based on nationalities imported from Commons (I will not do that again). P27 does not seem the be a good property for determining nationality. So I am trying to better understand how such concept is being modeled and how it can be improved. The final goal would be for me to be able to look-up that Durer and Hitler were "German". --Jarekt (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
your questions are territorial, two mentioned persons have nothing common in "country" sense d1g (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the countries are different but we are talking about concept of "nationality" and most sources describe both as having "German nationality" (see for example here and here). That is what I am trying to look up, and although there is a high correlation with P27 and P103 but those are different concepts. --Jarekt (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
getty.edu is not authoritative for values in P27:
"the object is a country that recognizes the subject as its citizen"
Proper source would be a list registry of citizens in some country.
So, government should recgnize it's citizens, not research institution. Especially art-centric institution.
Historical records cover 1000 years more or less after Genghis Khan (Q720), that's why everything is explained in Wikipedia. d1g (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g, I agree with all your statements about P27. However, P27 is not the same as "nationality", Which I was asking about. So lets not talk about P27 but about where and how to store "nationality". I do not think we store it and I think we should. --Jarekt (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Zolo, yes if we create new property than we might also have to create new items for some nations/nationalities to separate them from the items for the current countries. However we already have few such items, like China (Q29520) or Korea (Q18097). For some others a single item might do for both current country and nation, for example United States (Q30). --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zolo: followed by (P156) is used incorrectly in that item, if anything it should be replaced by (P1366), but with several intervening items.
For pre-modern states, the equivalent relationship is typically "subject of", which is already an alias of the P27.
@Jarekt: The nation for that country would presumably be the American People.
Nations, as opposed to legal sovereign states, are extremely complicated. Making a usable system for identifying people around nations might not be doable. Some examples of relationships between states and nations:
  • The Egyptian constitution defines the Egyptian people as being part of both the "Arab nation" and the "Islamic nation", while many individuals may consider themselves to be part of the Egyptian people may not consider themselves to be part of the Arab and/or Islamic nations. Similar situations exist in numerous other countries.
  • The Irish and Jewish peoples are generally considered to be nations despite majorities of both groups residing outside their affiliated nation-state/country/territory and periods of time with those states/countries/territories not being under their sovereignty.
  • The peoples within the Plurinational State of Bolivia and the Home Nations of the United Kingdom are each considered to be nations of their own, while being part of the greater nation associated with the state/country. The First Nations (Q392316) in Canada and other aboriginal nations in other countries are considered to be nations despite not having associated sovereign states. This adds up to probably thousands of non-sovereign nations, some with or without autonomy or national government.
  • Virtually every item on w:List of ethnic groups is at least occasionally considered a nation, despite many not having ever had a sovereign state. According to w:Ethnic group, the term "ethnic group" is often used synonymously with "nation", and we already have a property for ethnic group (P172).
We currently have 2,292,412 country of citizenship (P27) statements. These statements are fairly clear-cut, since the topic is an unambiguous direct legal status. Dealing with fuzzier concepts of nations and such is much more difficult to find sources for, and is often controversial. --Yair rand (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the term "nation" is misleading here, because it carries the connotations so aptly enumerated by Yair rand above. I think the use Jarekt is referring to above—the (compound) "Description" field of Commons Creator templates such as c:Creator:Pieter van der Borcht (I)—is distinct from, but partially derived from, the concept of a "nation" or the common uses of "nationality" (at least in the sense "Belonging to the nation X"). The pseudo-nationality of painters (and by extension also to printmakers, photographers, etc.) is one effectively assigned by art critics and historians, and is one that resembles and partially overlaps the concept of a "school" (style) of painting. For instance, a "Flemish" painter need not have any particular nationality or country of citizenship: any number of factors may have caused them to be considered "Flemish". It could be that the artist was active in the "Flemish" region (geographical region with numerous nations, changing hands several times in an artists' lifetime), or that they learned from a Flemish master, or (and) painted in the style of the Flemish school. Or, when this pseudo-nationality corresponds with actual de jure citizenships, a photographer may be considered a Spanish–Portugese artist, even though they lack citizenship in Portugal but do have both Spanish and British passports. It depends on which countries or schools the sources consider the artist to have strong affinities with. The same can apply for historical eras (e.g. "Mediaeval"), but that's usually treated as a separate property.
Thus, I think the concept Jarekt is looking for is one distinct from the concept of "Nationality", but with a sort of fuzzy derivation from it (multiple inheritance from citizenship, nation, school of art, work location, and style/genre). The good news, though, is that the number of variants that are not straight up 1:1 with a country of citizenship is limited (by art historians' ability to categorize). Judging by some random sampling, adding some way to say that a painter is considered "Flemish" or "Chinese" independently of their citizenships, or "German" or "Russian" despite their formal citizenships being in former (historical) states, would cover a huge part of the immediate problem. That is, a descriptive term not specifically tied to any de jure property (such as citizenship). And a lot of the needed data could, I think, be imported from Commons (and possibly also infoboxes on the Wikipedias), so long as we treat the concepts as distinct, since the immediate interested party (user) is Commons and artist biographies / artwork articles on the Wikipedias.
PS. As an example of why I think the concepts are distinct, consider an Austro-German painter of the Romantic school, with one formal citizenship in the Weimar Republic (among others), who also happens to be better known, and thus more notable as, a German dictator (nobody talks about him as an Austrian dictator). We need the concepts to be able to express all these facets depending on the context of the use: i.e Commons' perspective (the painting and writing) vs. Wikipedia's perspective (everything else).
PPS. I think I may have just ruined Godwin's law. :) --Xover (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Yair rand, yes nationality can be confusing and complicated and controversial but for the great majority of people it is not. Commons creator templates (from which I am importing data at the moment) use Nationality field, which is also defined by template:nationality (used on Commons and Wikidata). In most of the cases the nationality can be encoded by language independent ISO 3166 codes with only a few dozen extra nationalities added for distinct nonexisting countries or regions. On commons we use hundreds of nationalities not thousands. Assigning "nationality" is also not that complicated as most of the identifier databases I checked specify the "Nationality" of a person (see for example RKD). Also, as Xover mentioned, it can be imported from other projects as most Wikipedia articles start with a phrase like "German poet", "Russian painter", etc. Also categories on Commons and Wikipedias are usually grouped by nationality. Nationality is also specified in En-Wiki en:template:Infobox artist and possibly other templates. I will be away from the internet for a few days and not be able to continue this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jarekt, long time no see ;)
on frwikisource's Authors, that uses the same nationality concept as Commons, we simply use a reference list of p27 which the lua template links to the corresponding gentile, like this, this way, we can decide to use "German" for "German Empire", "Germany", and all other names used through times.... or not (for specific places). I don't know if you could use the same system on Commons (that needs to be pluri-lingual), but in fact, we were inspired by the system that Commons is still using for converting languages... :)
when we find a new country (through Categories that list unmatched values), we just add it to the list...
what do you think ?
--Hsarrazin (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Hsarrazin. I was thinking about generating my own version of a lookup-table like your s:fr:Module:Auteur2/nationalités, but than I figured out that if I need it on Commons and Wikipedia's Infobox might need it (because it is using such field) than others might need nationality of a person as well. Instead of all of us creating our own look-up tables it is better if we store them on wikidata. That is why I started this discussion. --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: the subject is so vague and controversary that I sometimes don't understand. Can you define this property: "nationality"? How it should be separated from ethnic group (Q41710)? Is it nationality (Q231002)? --Infovarius (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Infovarius, "nationality" is pretty clearly defined for people living in modern times and nationality (Q231002) is a good definition. It is closely related and sometimes synonymous with ethnic group (Q41710), citizenship (Q42138), and first language (Q36870). For people living in earlier centuries it is more tricky, I am not an expert on the subject, but it seems to be determined by first language (Q36870) and place of birth. Most biographies, in books and online, specify nationality, so do databases like ULAN or RKD, even if it is vaguely defined. We refer to Mikhail Bulgakov (Q835) as "Russian Writer" even though country of citizenship (P27) is Russian Empire (Q34266) and Soviet Union (Q15180). You might have Czech or Slovakian nationality but rarely Czechoslovakian. Some people are refer as "Yugoslavian" and some might be refereed to as "Serbian" or "Croatian". Some people might be Canadians (Q1196645) and some French-Canadian Americans (Q5501705). If we create a property to capture "nationality" it will be important to use references in case of controversial nationalities. --Jarekt (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You are not clearing anything. Mikhail Bulgakov (Q835) is "Russian writer" because he was writing in Russian language - this is simpler than "nationality". Another example, in Russia we have two adjectives: "российский" (demonym (Q217438) for Russia (Q159), includes Tatar, Chechen, Udmurt and other "nationalities") and "русский" (refers to Russian (Q7737) and Russians (Q49542), includes Russians in Ukraine (Q311762), Russian Americans (Q1140588) and other "nationalities"). P.S. If you are referring to a place of living then you probably can use demonym (P1549) of such place. --Infovarius (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata Mapping

Hello, I'm currently connecting the geographic descriptors of the STW Thesaurus for Economics (http://zbw.eu/stw) and I have a question for the term "Bodenseeraum" @de "Lake Constance region" @en. I would like to connect the STW descriptor "Bodenseeraum/Lake Constance region" with Lake Constance Lake Constance (Q4127) and add "Bodenseeraum/Lake Constance region" in "Also known as". I find that the Wikipedia page treats not only of the lake but the of the region too, for example: Tourism, leisure and sports, Towns and cities at the lake, climate, flora and fauna etc.

What do you think about ?

Thank's a lot Jdeillon: Jdeillon (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to create a new item for "Bodenseeraum". Lake Constance (Q4127) is instance of (P31) lake (Q23397). ChristianKl (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: From a practical aspect, creating a new - and isolated - item would undermine one purpose of the mapping Jeanne mentioned, namely connecting STW descriptors via Wikidata to the relevant Wikipedia pages (in different languages). But I'm afraid it touches a more general problem, too: Often, the Wikipedia pages cover different things - in that case, the lake itself and the region, which belong to different and categorically disjunct classes. If we would try to separate these aspects in a clean fashion in WD, we would have to attach the Wikipedia pages to two separate items, which would be hardly desireable. The other option could be making Lake Constance (Q4127) instance of (P31) landscape (Q107425) (or some better fitting class), perhaps with lake (Q23397) as a preferred class. I've seen that approach in different places in WD, but I'm not sure if it is considered good practice. Or would facet of (P1269), mentioned in instance of (P31)/talk, be a better solution? Jneubert (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata items aren't equivalent to the Wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages often cover more information. A new item might begin isolated but there's a good chance that it get's more statements over time. It might be very worthwhile to describe the meaning of Bodenseeraum with Wikidata statements. http://www.fachdokumente.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/117804/399-Bodenseeraum.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=399-Bodenseeraum.pdf provides good data for describing it. ChristianKl (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I see your point, but I'm not sure if I can agree completely (because somewhere the differentiation may be too fine-grained to be helpful). Anyway, extending the meaning of Lake Constance (Q4127) is not an option, because there is no consensus, and on the other hand creating a new item would not be very useful in the concrete context of the mapping. A solution could be to introduce a new "close match" property (in analogy to skos:closeMatch). Since similar situations - where the thing some external identifier designates is close, but not completely the same as a Wikidata item - occur in other places too, I'll try to come up with an according property proposal. Jneubert (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

autores.uy database id (P2558) - URL connection fails for some users

re P:P2558, http://autores.uy/autor/13103 (Chrome) 

This site can’t be reached
autores.uy took too long to respond.
Search Google for autores uy autor 13103
ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT

I noticed that for several days. How can one add a value if the website is down? Original research? User:Zeroth https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q27786371&diff=534730052&oldid=534719933 77.179.20.183 02:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It works for me. Strakhov (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Still broken for IP of Telefonica Deutschland GmbH, tested in Chrome, Edge, Firefox. Here is the Firefox message: 

The connection has timed out
The server at autores.uy is taking too long to respond.
 The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.
 If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer’s network connection.
 If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

77.179.8.56 12:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

autores.uy connection tests

OK for

Not OK for

That's strange. Can you provide any proxy to test the connection errors from other countries?. Thanks.--Zeroth (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I sent a mail to the admin of autores.uy and it seems that they had DDoS attacks from Germany servers and they temporary blocked the access from an IP range of that country. At my request, they lifted it. Could you try again please?. @Jared Preston:. Regards, --Zeroth (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zeroth: yes, I can confirm the link is now working again. Jared Preston (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Consider "imported from" as a qualifier, not a source

(See Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/07#Not counting "imported from" as a source for a previous discussion)

Help:Sources#Different_types_of_sources says 

statements that are only supported by "imported from Wikimedia project (P143)" are not considered sourced statements. If you encounter one of these statements, please remove "imported from" and add a more reliable source.

Why not just show those imported from Wikimedia project (P143) as qualifiers, like proportion (P1107)? It would makes it easier (i.e. without having to click on each "1 source") to check if a statement is sourced or not. The RedBurn (ϕ) 09:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Oppose This would violate the data model. Qualifiers say under what conditions the statement is valid, references say how we found statement, whatever the reliability of the sources is. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Properties for references should be in references. d1g (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Label conflict - how to solve?

I can't add Czech label to Template:t (Q30769953) because of conflict with Q10809692. However these are totally differrent templates. What is the proceedings in such cases? (Feel free to fix it directly if possible.)

— Danny B. 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Specification of one of the descriptions seems to be a workaround. --Sintakso (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

How to edit the spam filter?

Q36799744 needs www.bestwestern.de/hotels/Weingarten/BEST-WESTERN-Parkhotel-Weingarten as its official URL. But I cannot enter it because the spam filter won't let me. What is the point of this in Wikidata? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You can't. Only admins can. It's not even on the local blacklist, but on the global blacklist. I've added the link to the local whitelist. And added the link to the item. Mbch331 (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

merging doline (fr) and sinkhole (en)

Hello ! Could you merge doline (fr) Q30142256, sinkhole (en) Q188734 and Q10939257 ? Thanks.--Cquoi (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the third one, there was just a link to a redirect. I can't see how the first and second one could be the same thing. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
You probably meant "Q30148256". These two items cannot be merged because there are several wikis with articles about both items. You may change individual sitelinks if you think they are incorrect. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Matèj. Regards --Cquoi (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Import ISNI from VIAF

Can someone select items in http://viaf.org/viaf/data/viaf-20170705-links.txt.gz that have a link to Wikidata and an ISNI, and check if the Wikidata item has the ISNI and add it to Wikidata if not present? 78.51.128.16 18:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we don't do this anymore, because VIAF mismatched a lot of people. I would love a Wikidata game for this or some import to the primary sources tool. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
We recently exported from Wikidata a list of people with Open Library identifiers and their VIAF identifiers as we had it. We received a file with the Open Library redirects and duplicates. All the duplicates have been removed. I do not know the status of the redirects. As a result Open Library now includes links to both VIAF and Wikidata. Andy Mabbett did a trial run of an import from the Biological Heritage Library. They have links to VIAF and to Open Library. When we receive these values as well, we will enrich Wikidata and we will find issues. This is how and where we make a positive difference for us and for our partners. This is how we improve quality.
The primary sources data is a dead end. We cannot even query the data that is in there. It is a travesty that it is proposed for new data. It is not functional. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There is active work going on to "revive" the primary sources tool. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently learned that both VIAF and ISNI are managed by the OCLC. So when both are available, when they match a current record with either a VIAF or an ISNI identifier we enrich our content. So there are no downsides to this proposal. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Primary Sources" seems to be suitable for this type of data. Links between VIAF ids and ISNI aren't stable. If needed, one could always do some federated query based on VIAF id.
--- Jura 15:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

GerardM, User:Sjoerddebruin, User:Jura1: There are large gaps in the ISNI coverage. Just one example: Q268840 (Sally Potter) has VIAF, in VIAF has many connected IDs, including ISNI, and in Wikidata also has many other IDs. Why does the ISNI not show up in Wikidata? Yes, one can manually fix this, but the tools seem to be broken. The VIAF record history shows 

SELIBR|276046	add	2009-03-03T12:03:42+00:00 // first entry
ISNI|0000000081584466	add	2013-09-16T16:15:07+00:00 // link to ISNI
WKP|Q268840	add	2015-04-14T18:56:54+00:00  // link to Wikidata

More than two years have past. What is wrong with the toolchain? User:Magnus_Manske, any idea? 77.179.20.183 14:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Another example, Q611314, https://viaf.org/viaf/26736049/ 

LC|no2002074020	add	2009-03-03T12:03:40+00:00 // first entry
ISNI|0000000076892915	add	2013-09-16T16:15:07+00:00 // link to ISNI
WKP|Q611314	add	2015-04-14T18:56:54+00:00 // link to Wikidata

Why are the ISNI not automatically added? It could have been obtained automatically since 2015-04-14T18:56:54+00:00. How many more are missing? Thousands? A million? User:D1gggg and User:GerardM any idea? 77.179.20.183 23:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposing the "primary sources tool" in this particular instance, when both VIAF and ISNI numbers are known, shows a misunderstanding of both VIAF and ISNI. First, ISNI does not accept imports that are below 95% accuracy. This is better than what we have at Wikidata as a general error rate. Second, we already have identified the people et al involved because WE associated them with Wikidata identifiers. As a consequence all arguments that there are issues with VIAF are issues with our own content as well. OCLC does administer both VIAF and ISNI so the compounded error rate is really small and it is a travesty to have people do manually work, introduce an error rate of 6% for no good reason. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. ISNI has an error rate of 5%? At least now it's clear we shouldn't include it at all.
How did you reach the conclusion about a supposed error rate of Wikidata? Has this something to do with your edits with CatScan?
--- Jura 06:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Obvious. ISNI does quality checks before they import new data. When they find an error rate of 5% or more, they do not include the new data. When data is entered manually, any tool or method, you introduce around 6% of new errors. Consequently when ISNI and VIAF share the same item identified at our end, the quality of that data is superior to anything we can do. Including the "primary sources tool" because its use introduces the same level of errors. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested to see a reference for your claim that "anything involving a human in the loop has 6% error rate". − Pintoch (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That is not relevant to the discussion. Suffice to say that any manual action introduces errors .. We are discussing the quality of importing combined data from an export by the OCLC where VIAF and ISNI are combined. With a proper script there are no new errors that will be introduced. When we run the export from the OCLC repeatedly the quality we get at our end will improve with time. Otherwise we remain unaware of their improvements. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Why did you bring up this claim if it is irrelevant? Manual action can introduce errors, but it can also fix errors. That's why people curate databases! So it is totally possible to have a lower error rate with a manual import (by excluding the erroneous records, or marking them as deprecated in the case of duplicates). Again, if you had a source for your claims, I think many people here would be genuinely interested to see some quantitative analysis. − Pintoch (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not a claim, it is a question. The point to the argument is that manual changes using any tool introduce errors. Running the same script without modifications will only introduce errors that are in the base material, something a manual process introduces as well. When you are questioning this basic assumption / observed fact, there is little point in arguing further. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ WD links to VIAF and VIAF makes a claim about ISNI. Adding ISNI with claim "stated in VIAF", "retrieved 2017-08-10" - how is that NOT better than the addition of an ISNI by an IP user or logged-in editor? And if one runs no script to check if the claim is still supported, how will one find errors that have already been found by others, namely ISNI-IA and VIAF? 92.231.163.153 18:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

ISNI format

(from IP talk)

Hi - your ISNI entries are not following the 4 groups of 4 digits separated by spaces that the ISNI property expects - for example here: in this edit. I think we have a bot that fixes these, but you should probably try to enter them correctly in the first place to limit the extra work needed. See the "format as a regular expression" statement for P213. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith - ISNI is defined in ISO 27729:2012 as a 16-digit identifier. DeltaBot and KrBot changed my statements to the Wikidata-specific ISNIs. It is a pain that editors have to add the values manually, so add extra burden on editors by requiring Wikidata-specific formatting is just hillarious. 77.179.20.183 15:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: I will stop adding any ISNI for now. Have a good day. 77.179.20.183 16:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I also find "4 groups of 4 digits separated by spaces" format for ISNI quite annoying and it was a pain to add those spaces each time I copy it from a source that does not use spaces. Maybe we can display it with spaces but store it without? Or allow both formats? --Jarekt (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You can enter it in any format. Eventually a bot normalizes it.
--- Jura 16:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(from IP talk) It's not a Wikidata-specific thing, it's the standard display format. See the discussion on the talk page for the ISNI property - Property_talk:P213. If you go to isni.org and look at any entry, it is displayed there with spaces. You don't have to fix the formatting yourself - as I mentioned, there's a bot that does it - but if you have a long list of them there are plenty of bits of software you can use to add the spaces to the id's in your list (for example I've used OpenRefine and the expression "join(splitByLengths(value,4,4,4,4),\" \")" does the trick there). ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith: You say it is not Wikidata-specific, and then for reference the first source you point to is a Wikidata property page. The other reference is isni.org and "look at any entry" - but if I go to http://www.isni.org/isni/000000012281955X then the first ISNI I see, namely the one in the URL has no spaces. Yes, for display it has spaces. That is similar to
ISO standard identifiers
Standard Name Abbr. Format Format for display
ISO 2108 International Standard Book Number ISBN 9783161484100 978-3-16-148410-0, 9 783161 484100
ISO 3297 International Standard Serial Number ISSN 20493630, 9772049363002 2049-3630, 9 772049 363002
ISO 3901 International Standard Recording Code ISRC USRC17607839 US-RC1-76-07839
ISO 10957 International Standard Music Number ISMN 9790260000438 979-0-2600-0043-8, 9 790260 000438
ISO 13616 International Bank Account Number IBAN GB29NWBK60161331926819 GB29 NWBK 6016 1331 9268 19
ISO 15706 International Standard Audiovisual Number ISAN 0000000016FF0000Y000000009 0000-0000-16FF-0000-Y-0000-0000-9
ISO 15707 International Standard Musical Work Code ISWC T0000000010 T-000000001-0, T-000.000.001-0
ISO 17442 Legal Entity Identifier LEI 5493000IBP32UQZ0KL24 5493 00 0IBP32UQZ0KL 24
ISO 21047 International Standard Text Code ISTC 0A9200212B4A1057 0A9 2002 12B4A105 7, 0A9-2002-12B4A105-7
ISO 27729 International Standard Name Identifier ISNI 000000012281955X 0000 0001 2281 955X (two spaces as in VIAF), 0000 0001 2281 955X (one space in ISNI, Wikidata)
77.179.20.183 20:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but why are you copying my comments to you to Project Chat? You have copied this one incorrectly - the OpenRefine expression is invalid, but it is correct on your talk page. This is hardly an important issue - as I said, if you don't want to edit to the format this property expects, a bot will fix it within a day or two I believe. If you think the format should be changed, the property discussion page is the place to raise your concerns - and I pointed you there because this very concern had been raised several years ago, and there was a community decision to stick with the display format. If you think we should change, make your case there. ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith, no idea why the copying was broken. I now try to copy "join(splitByLengths(value,4,4,4,4),\" \")" here again, preview shows it as on the talk. Maybe yet another MediaWiki-Feature/Bug? 77.179.20.183 00:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
ISBN need far more knowledge about publishers and countries to enter correct tabulation by hand:
978-3-16-148410-0
978-316-148410-0
978-316-1-48410-0
978-316-1-484-10-0
3161484100 is by far easier to enter manually d1g (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g, maybe sometimes people want to store the ISBN as found on the actual product. So, for ISBN one may like additional options, to the compact stored format. But ISNI is rarely not printed on humans. Input methods are extra. The ISNI issue is mainly about data storage. 77.179.20.183 00:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It is not necessary to know tabulated form of ISBN. Many authors don't care about such things when they are used in citations.
We shouldn't ask users to format/enter identifiers against complex presentation formats. d1g (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
We need to follow standards of course, so spaces in ISNI shouldn't be meaningful. d1g (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
We also need more properties: "display format" "value format" d1g (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
The spaces break the resolver BROKEN https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/resolver.php?prop=213&value=0000000059363552 Works only with Wikidata-specific ISNI: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/resolver.php?prop=213&value=0000%200000%205936%203552 77.179.20.183 00:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Import CSV: QID,ISNI

@ArthurPSmith, Jarekt, GerardM, Pasleim, Ivan A. Krestinin: Here are more ISNI for import:

data 1 
qid,isni (P213)
1356734,0000000047423554
1489614,0000000048994682
1876535,0000000030477847
2327185,0000000041513030
2429939,0000000032408204
2877981,0000000048150578
3099006,000000004556752X
3356953,0000000041911186
3384550,000000000324081X
3466333,0000000029586093
3719848,0000000047197753
4444192,0000000050935083
5484113,0000000038433734
5658195,0000000036319671
5659468,0000000049015052
5701974,0000000048813044
5725121,0000000042905490
5830026,0000000043630839
5906442,000000004587794X
6039616,000000004665860X
6053736,0000000046657586
6054329,0000000034502157
6054332,0000000043543559
6109778,0000000041101781
6112331,0000000048689311
7368989,0000000044789139
8041208,0000000079123644
10268281,0000000044924177
16493082,0000000044276819
16582095,0000000041819451
16629284,0000000048984855
17626769,0000000048972141
20013112,0000000052832010
20015231,0000000044522071
20016614,0000000044114510
20016629,0000000043467680
23705196,0000000048386206
23821144,0000000045425492
23942828,0000000043850698
23942873,000000004674804X
27893855,0000000045559298
28121995,0000000002771467
29419547,0000000039951699
34618587,0000000045979487

77.179.20.183 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

ChristianKl - Me. As when I added the data manually the source was me. But it is really tiresome. See my past additions. One can verify the accuracy by checking with the content on the ISNI-link target. 77.179.20.183 18:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Isn't easier to just use the authority control adding tool per individual, and let it populate all missing data, whether it be ISNI or whatever?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst - no idea how, but here is a list with links to the individuals. Can you test some?

data 2 
Q1356734,0000000047423554
Q1489614,0000000048994682
Q1876535,0000000030477847
Q2327185,0000000041513030
Q2429939,0000000032408204
Q2877981,0000000048150578
Q3099006,000000004556752X
Q3356953,0000000041911186
Q3384550,000000000324081X
Q3466333,0000000029586093
Q3719848,0000000047197753
Q4444192,0000000050935083
Q5484113,0000000038433734
Q5658195,0000000036319671
Q5659468,0000000049015052
Q5701974,0000000048813044
Q5725121,0000000042905490
Q5830026,0000000043630839
Q5906442,000000004587794X
Q6039616,000000004665860X
Q6053736,0000000046657586
Q6054329,0000000034502157
Q6054332,0000000043543559
Q6109778,0000000041101781
Q6112331,0000000048689311
Q7368989,0000000044789139
Q8041208,0000000079123644
Q10268281,0000000044924177
Q16493082,0000000044276819
Q16582095,0000000041819451
Q16629284,0000000048984855
Q17626769,0000000048972141
Q20013112,0000000052832010
Q20015231,0000000044522071
Q20016614,0000000044114510
Q20016629,0000000043467680
Q23705196,0000000048386206
Q23821144,0000000045425492
Q23942828,0000000043850698
Q23942873,000000004674804X
Q27893855,0000000045559298
Q28121995,0000000002771467
Q29419547,0000000039951699
Q34618587,0000000045979487

77.179.20.183 02:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

billinghurst, ArthurPSmith, GerardM - the data still is not there. What can be done? 77.179.8.56 12:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
With the authority control too, I went through and updated the second batch to have the available links as shown at VIAF. Still recommend that users get an account, and utilise the available tools to do these edits.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

All done manually. 92.227.36.147 13:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

What to do with items that have multiple articles in same language wiki?

I'm sure this is answered somewhere but I can't find it. So I stumbled across the English-language article St. Cuthbert's beads (Q7587693) which in the USA we call Indian bead (Q3055342). Separate articles make sense as they have separate histories of being used as currency, etc. The scientific name for these are fossilized columns of crinoidea. In French they are known as entroque. The English Indian bead article and French entroque article share while the same Wikidata item. I've just created a category on Commons called Category:Crinoid beads that I have linked to Q3055342 (Indian beads/Entroque) since it contained two items. I've manually added a Wikicommons link to the St Cuthbert's beads article but Is there any kind of way to merge these on Wikidata so the Wikicommons category can be linked to both here? It seems like there should be a way for Wikidata to understand that Q3055342 and Q7587693 are the same thing. Or is the only option to engage in the mess of suggesting a merge of the two English-language articles to some neutral title (which even I don't support)? Wikimandia (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all the items should be mutually related to each other by permanent duplicated item (P2959) (or, if there is doubt, said to be the same as (P460)). The interwiki links are not affected by this, they need to add them manually in the old style in Wikipedias or at Commons. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

"date of birth" (P569)

The date of birth (P569) property has recently been edited to change the Italian label from "data di nascita" to "26 maggio 1938". I can't fix it because that property is semi-protected and I am not a confirmed/autoconfirmed editor on Wikidata. Could someone fix it for me? Thanks. —RP88 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed by Jura1. --Denny (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

instance of wife of the President of the United States

Feels wrong can someone fix instance of and "wife of the President of the United States" so its correct mapped on d:Q432473 - Salgo60 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Done by Jura1. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Harvest Templates Issues

Trying to use Harvest Templates to pull dates of birth from members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan on English Wikipedia.

We have run into some issues which we can’t explain:

  1. The items we are interested in aren’t all in a usable Category within Wikipedia, but we are able to get them via a Wikidata SPARQL query.
  2. This list contains 342 people, which we believe we can input into the “Manual list” section of Harvest Templates.
  3. But when we hit “get pages” - we only get 25 pages returned.
  4. Of those - an even smaller set look like they actually get updated using the tool (we had to untick “don’t load items with the property set” - as we got an error with it set).
  5. Using Petscan with a SPARQL query, and template filter, we have verified that there are 120 of the previously selected items with a “Birth date and age” template, but no date of birth yet in Wikidata.

Any ideas of where we can find additional help with this? --Lucyfediachambers (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"We" is that EveryPolitician employees?
--- Jura 07:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Jura1. Apologies for not being clear on that we = me, Oravrattas (both EveryPolitician) and Saqib in Pakistan- who reached out about this and we've been attempting to puzzle this out together. --Lucyfediachambers (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
When you click "get pages", the tool will find all pages with template, up to the limit (10,000 by default). The "manual list" filter is only applied after all the pages (up to the limit) have been sent back. So if the pages you're looking for are beyond that limit (very likely given that you had to uncheck already set), you may never reach them. I would still try to find a category to filter. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah, so the tool first finds all the pages with the specified template (with a limit), and then applies the filters? I had assumed that when you supply a list of pages, it starts with those, and then looks for the ones in that list which have the template. What is the ordering when a Category is supplied? Why does the same problem not occur — i.e where it first finds only the first 10,000 pages with the DOB template, again missing lots of other people when it filters those to ones in the specified category? --Oravrattas (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
All filters but the manual list are applied server-side, including category. (Note that you can also input a list of Qids but this will behave same.) Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Single category items?

Maybe I am mistaken, though I thought that current practice was not to create single category items, like Category:Champagnac-la-Rivière (Q32377107). What is our current practice?  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I never heard of such current practice and WD:N does not claim it either. The Query Service just told me that we have ~2.7M items about categories with only one sitelink. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It's just that it shouldn't be a link to Commons.
--- Jura 14:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that must have been my confusion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

add references by quick statement

Hello, How I can add reference and its retrieved by using quick statements tool? (i.e. adding them as references not as qualifier) --Alaa :)..! 16:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Use "S" prefix instead of "P" (S813). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@Matěj Suchánek: thanks for your help --Alaa :)..! 16:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Sorry for the trouble, but could an admin please delete Gheorghe Buzdugan (Q37069580), which I created nor knowing that there already is an item for the same person. Thank you in advance. Mycomp (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)‎

Done, thanks! Syced (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

1 character job for a bot

  • remove P856="example.org" when P856="example.org/" is present

such bot can run with 10 minute intervals after humans or other bots d1g (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ivan A. Krestinin: same reason, all patterns could allow optional "/" in P856 d1g (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

PetScan (wikidata-labels)

Hello. Can anyone explain me how petscan - wikidata - Labels etc. works? Xaris333 (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

See PetScan on meta. Pamputt (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing about that section. Xaris333 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey Xaris333, your request is a bit vague. Can you please let us know a little more in detail what you want to do with petscan? —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Nothing specific. I know how to use it, most of the options. But I haven't understood that point. "Labels etc.Note: The options below will be used as a generator, if and only if no other generator is used!... Has all of these labels..." How it works. Maybe that options helps me in future search, if I know what is it. Xaris333 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, some comments about Petscan in bullet points. Maybe some of the aspects are know to you, but here they are:

  • Petscan is the successor of Catscan, which was a tool by Magnus Manske as well, designed to craw Wikipedias according to (primarily) categorization, but also for existence of templates, links, etc. Petscan also includes this functionality, but it also got a lot of connectivity to Wikidata which no other tool provides.
  • Many users are unhappy with the amount of functionality that this tool offers, but there is in fact a need for most of it. Even experienced users use “trial-and-error” method until the outcome fits their expectations.
  • Regarding the label function you asked for: as far as I understand, it only has an effect if no other input is provided in any of the tabs. But then you can quickly look up items which have certain combinations of labels, descriptions, or aliases. Try some inputs without filling any other field and learn from the results… I doubt that there is a useful description around for that functionality.

—MisterSynergy (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Official website

Hi, I have noticed that the property "official website" is used a lot for people from the entertainment industry and firms and companies and so on, but not at all for people from the academia.

Basically, even if scientists have group webpages, we rarely add such infomation to our items. I found no evidence in my random sampling.

Is it on purpose? Is it a gap to fix? Any previous discussion about the topic?

In any case I agree that the name of the institution is enough to find the website, but it can be also use a source per se. Even if it is not a "third party source" the academic website is usually considered reliable on many platform as a source for basic academic information (Thesis supervisor, year of graduation, main awards...).--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

official website (P856) is also suitable for people from the academia, for them having official website (P856) with link to his/her profile on webpage of its institution is appropriate.--Jklamo (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
ok.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

College Football Data Warehouse ID

What do we do when a website shuts down? "College Football Data Warehouse ID" for w:College Football Data Warehouse is no longer active since February 2017. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Deprecate the formatter URL (P1630) of College Football Data Warehouse ID (P3560) (already done) and keep all identifiers. The links will not be generated any longer, but we can still somewhat identify the items that used this identifier. —MisterSynergy (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Can we reformat the descriptor to point to the Wayback Machine so we can have a useable link again? We can go to "https://web.archive.org/web/20160805191715/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/coaching/alltime_coach_year_by_year.php?coachid=3401" from "http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/coaching/alltime_coach_year_by_year.php?coachid=3401" and take us from dead link to working link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I doubt that this would work, but I had the idea this morning as well. The archive URLs contain the archiving timestamp (as above: “20160805191715” for “5 Aug 2016, 19:17:15”) which is identifier-dependent and thus not stable. If an Internet Archive expert could point to a possibility to link the archived profiles without any varying parts, it might be an option to add a new (non-deprecated) formatter URL next to the old one. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here are some random entries: https://web.archive.org/web/20160805191715/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/coaching/alltime_coach_year_by_year.php?coachid=3435 https://web.archive.org/web/20160805191715/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/coaching/alltime_coach_year_by_year.php?coachid=3115

Note that an archive.org timestamp is down to second level, as noted above, so even if the whole site was crawled in one go, it might have subtly different timestamps for different sections. One approach you could use is to link to https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/coaching/alltime_coach_year_by_year.php?coachid=3435 - this doesn't go direct to the target page, but instead to a landing page with all the archive versions listed. It's not perfect, but it's probably good enough for a backup. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Label changed to nil

At enwiki I am seeing a message from a module that the label for an entity has been changed to nil. It is the first of the following, and sure enough, it is not displaying a label. The second entity is just an example of something that works, where the label is shown.

elementary charge (Q2101) (update: this used to display "no label" instead of "elementary charge")
femtometre (Q208788)

However, the entity shows "elementary charge (Q2101)" even after I purged it. What's going on? Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

What's the exact error message you're getting? Mbch331 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this is still unresolved #P1027 does not show its label, is not found as "conferred by". Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
How irritating. I tried {{Q|Q2101}} a few times, both here and at enwiki. Here, it was displaying "no label" instead of "elementary charge", while {{Q}} at enwiki displayed nothing for the label. I see that it has corrected itself. Conceivably erratic behavior like this could be related to T170039 concerning pages that display an error in mw.wikibase.entity.lua (see Tech/News/2017/31). Johnuniq (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Well elementary charge (Q2101) didn't resolve itself. I did a hard purge on the item (purge with forcelinkupdate). Mbch331 (talk) 08:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, but that is weird. I often need to use forcelinkupdate to purge error tracking categories at enwiki in order to find real errors, but I have never had a case where previewing a template would show an error, unless there was a real error. In this case, previewing my opening post showed "no label", and I'm sure I would have noticed if it did not show that problem after saving. In fact, you probably saw it showing "no label", then purged the item (which I had done, although without forcelinkupdate). I guess there is a caching layer between the underlying database and clients. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
A likely explanation for the fact that a standard purge did nothing while a hard purge fixed the problem is that a standard purge merely flushes the HTML cache for the rendered page, while a hard purge presumably also flushes the database caching. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Countries, places etc for sports

I will ask again because is so confusing. In many sports competitions and seasons there is a problem with places. I am writing down all possible cases.

Previous discussions:

1) National club competitions and seasons: competitions and seasons that a team from all the country (one country) can take place. The competition held only in one country, nowhere else. For example, Serie A (Q15804). Any team from Italy, and only from Italy, can be on that championship and the competition held only in Italy. It's not a local championship and its not about more than 1 country. In that case we are using ONLY country (P17) --> Italy (Q38). No need for other properties like operating area (P2541).

  • Problem 1a: Special case: Teams of countries of the United Kingdom: At association football UK have 4 association. And we agree (?) that we will use country (P17) --> United Kingdom (Q145) with operating area (P2541) --> England (Q21) (for competitions or seasons that held only in England). The problem is that in P2541 description says that is only for organization, not for an event.
  • Problem 1b (for seasons): A season with a number of team held in some stadiums. This is more important in national teams tournament. But, should we add stadiums in national competitions as well? For example, (the same for all 16 stadiums).

2) National club competitions and seasons at local level: competitions and seasons that a team from a specific part (or parts) of a country (one country) can take place. The competition held only in one country, that specific parts of the country, nowhere else. For example, Eccellenza Abruzzo 2010–11 (Q5332172). Only teams from Abruzzo (Q1284) are taking part. In that case we are using country (P17) --> Italy (Q38) with operating area (P2541) --> Abruzzo (Q1284). Is that ok?

country (P17) --> United Kingdom (Q145) with operating area (P2541) --> Dorset (Q23159) (England is not shows in that case.)

or

country (P17) --> United Kingdom (Q145) with operating area (P2541) --> England (Q21) and another property for Dorset (Q23159)?


  • Problem 2b (for seasons): Same with 1b.

3) International club competitions and seasons. Competitions and seasons that a team from more than one country can take part. The competition held in many countries. For example, UEFA Champions League (Q18756). (Some competitions like American Hockey League (Q464995) that take place in 2 countries are not a problem. We are using country (P17) for both countries and face them as a national championship - case 1 above).

  • Problem 3c: If we are going to list all countries with P17, what are you going to do for UK, if only England took part? And not Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for example. Should we use England at P17?
  • Problem 3d (for seasons): Same with 1b.

Comment (for seasons): For stadiums for club competitions, we can use home venue (P115) as a qualifier for each team with participating team (P1923). Example, 2016–17 Cypriot First Division (Q23756432).

4) International national teams competitions. Competitions and seasons that national teams are take part. Like UEFA Euro 2016 (Q189571).

  • Problem 4a (only for seasons): We are using country (P17) for the host country. Not for all countries that took part. I think is logical. But, why not to use operating area (P2541)? Or both? For example, France was the host country for Euro 2016. But the competition was about other 15 countries as well (ok, that maybe is a wrong thought, place is different from participating teams. That situation apply more to qualification phase, see problem 4d).
  • Problem 4b (only for seasons): We are using location (P276) for the stadiums. In these kind of competitions is easy because only some stadiums are been used.
  • Problem 4c: UEFA Euro 2020 (Q373501) is a national teams competitions that is not taking place in one country. Of course we can use P276 for stadiums. Are we going to use P17 for all countries that are going to host a game?
  • Problem 4f: Maybe for international competitions on national teams we can use P2541 to list all host country/countries using applies to part (P518) (or something else) and not the continent. For example:

Xaris333 (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a new property for 1a if P1532 and 2541 aren't applicable. d1g (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Something special for UK? Xaris333 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Not necessary, simply state why it was created; it may be in other sports too. d1g (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

authority_control.js gives problem for me getting VIAF records

See VIAF problem anyone skilled in VIAF and javascript that can see if they get the same problems... - Salgo60 (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Works for me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Works for me too. Mbch331 (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Installed Firefox and it worked for me...hm... thanks for testing - Salgo60 (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Same problem here, see my comment there. --Nono314 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Stub categories

Hi! Today I discovered Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192), created in 2016 by @Pasleim:, and I started substituting instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836) with instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192). However, @Jura1: told me that "we don't want to reproduce Wikipedia's category system with subclasses at Wikidata", so I stopped the substitution. In my opinion instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192) is better than instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836) + category combines topics (P971)Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261). What's your opinion? --Epìdosis 14:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's no reason to duplicate Wikipedia's category system. Adding Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192) adds no data that isn't already accessible from the parent categories. --Yair rand (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well that we do not want to replicate the category system (doesn’t work anyway, since category systems are somewhat different in each project). Category items are about a Wikimedia page outside the main knowledge tree (Q17379835), thus we should not put too much effort into them—they are basically here because Wikidata manages their sitelinks. However, if there is a use case that requires special subclasses of Wikimedia category (Q4167836), I wouldn’t object Epìdosis’ efforts. But I don’t know of such a use case yet… —MisterSynergy (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Since almost the beginning of Wikidata till 2016 people were using subclass of (P279) Category:Stubs (Q2944440). P279 is clearly not the right property to establish the relation between two Wikimedia categories. I mass removed the relations but multiple users protested. As a compromise I added instance of (P31) Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192) which follows the idea of Wikimedia templates category (Q23894233), Wikimedia administration category (Q15647814) and Wikimedia disambiguation category (Q15407973) --Pasleim (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
That's an improvement indeed. Personally, I mostly rely on "category combines topics" (P971) and "topic's main category" so (if these are not impacted) I should be indifferent to one or the other being used.
--- Jura 10:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
No a category should not refer to another category because the same structure does not exist in all Wikipedias. So I do object and imho there should only be an indication that a category is a category. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yair rand, MisterSynergy, Pasleim, Jura1, GerardM: So, what should we do? Stub categories should have:

  1. instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836) + category combines topics (P971)Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261);
  2. instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192);
  3. instance of (P31)Wikimedia category (Q4167836) + instance of (P31)Wikimedia category of stubs (Q24046192) + category combines topics (P971)Wikipedia:Stub (Q4663261)? --Epìdosis 17:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

We should not have stub categories at all. We have categories and that is it. Apart from that, I use "is a list of" "whatever" and I use qualifiers like "award received" "award name". It works so well because it allows Reasonator to compose a query with the results. This is one example. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Currently "Nearby" links to Special:Nearby, but it could just as well point to list pages nearby the item one is on.
e.g.

What do you think?
--- Jura 09:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It should be so when URL contains "wiki/Q", otherwise it should use geolocation. d1g (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Property for the starting point of a linear item

I admit being a bit lost, given the amount of similar properties (destination point (P1444), start point (P1427), terminus location (P609), terminus (P559)). Is there a specific property (start point or whatever?) equivalent to the terminus (P559) property? In order to give both start-end points of a linear feature, for example: a particular street "starts" (??) at its intersection with Street X and "ends" (terminus (P559)) at its intersection with Street Y)?--Asqueladd (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

coordinate origin (Q40735) for vector? Does a street really have a start point? It would have two ends, but wouldn't a start point indicate a required direction of travel?  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, billinghurst. Yes, in my geographical context streets have a conventionally defined "start point" (where numeration begins) and "end point" (where numeration ends). See for example here "comienza en/termina en" (starts/ends).--Asqueladd (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

subclass of (P279) AND uses (P2283) having the same class as value

RDF datatype IRI (Q31385480)subclass of (P279)Internationalized Resource Identifier (Q424583) AND RDF datatype IRI (Q31385480)uses (P2283)Internationalized Resource Identifier (Q424583) [2] looks wrong. One more misclassification by User:D1gggg? 77.179.188.46 16:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

It's ok to say that something "looks wrong" but please stop blaming contributors for continuously adding wrong statements . -- JakobVoss (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

any good candidates as Wikidata item of this property (P1629) for uses (P2283)?

d1g (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources

Hello, I was thinking of centralizing the sources on various wikis so that they can be accessed by various bots and be rated on various parameters like reliability, quality, etc. First logical step in this direction I could think of is the role of wikidata in same. Is there any existing feature on wikidata through which we can list sources? It would be a good option if we could use source on wikipedia with just unique identifier and page no, and fetch all other details of source through wikidata. Would like to know views of others on this proposal. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a simplification! I often use Q25711315 as source for villages of Sweden. It is a good source, maybe the only reliable source in the subject, but not for the names of the villages. So, is it reliable? YNeos! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Reliability is a subjective term and I am not denying that. But this subjectivity can be defined for certain cases, through which bots can get basis for assessing the sources. But that comes at a later stage. As I have already mentioned, first step would be to give definition to sources itself. They are just plain texts with some being bound in templates like Citation on ENWIKI, etc. If they are sourced from a central location like wikidata or wikisource, its utility can be defined by editors in time. For example, this could also help in getting the statistics of usage of a particular source or help in preparing a blacklist of those which are certain cases of NON-RS. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: are you familiar with meta:WikiCite? I think that's along the lines of what you're talking about. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
That is similar to what I am proposing here. On going through the related Wikiproject though, it seems limited to subjects of science. To illustrate on the idea above, we have plenty of sources on enwiki:Jainism, none of which I could find on Wikidata. If I could get a tool to replace them with wikidata information, that would be great opportunity to define those sources as being related to Jainism. They can be made available to editors who want to add citations to other articles related to Jainism and to those who want to add sources on wikidata items related to Jainism. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
What's been implemented so far is probably mostly just in science, but the intent with Wikicite is to (in the long run) have a wikidata item representing every cited reference in all wikipedia's. How to do this is still somewhat up in the air. I think we don't do this very well even within wikidata at the moment. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
How about importing all the Google books in Wikidata? Capankajsmilyo (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Next step for lexicographical data: demo system

Lexicographical data on Wikidata, Lydia Pintscher, Wikimania 2017

Hello all,

During Wikimania, Lydia presented the status of the lexicographical data on Wikidata. You can find the slides here.

We're also happy to announce that there is now a demo system ready, where you can try structured lexicographical data as it will appear on Wikidata. Please note the following:

  • The system is not persistent for now, the information are not stored and will disappear if you reload the pages
  • The structure of the pages is based on the data model, but the content and the properties will be decided by the community in the future. We created a few for the demo, feel free to create others.
  • The design of the page is also expected to change, this is not the final version

Feel free to try it, give us feedback or ask questions. See also the Phabricator board. Thanks for your support! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #273

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Other Noteworthy Stuff
    • Share your feedback on the draft strategic direction, a basis on which strategic plans will be built.
    • Wikidata reached d:Q36000000. The number of items has been increased by 20% in less than three months
  • Development

Most of the team was at Wikimania, talking to people, getting meaningful input from the editors, giving talks, hacking around :)

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


P155 and P156 qualifier constraint

Hello. Does the community agree with that changes? [3], [4] (@Lockal:)

Are we allowed to use those properties as statements and not as qualifiers (I know there are the exceptions of rare cases)? Now we mostly used them not as qualifiers.

Previous discussions:

I don't have an opinion or a suggestion. I just want to use them correctly.

Xaris333 (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I guess nobody interest for this subject either... Although there are discussions that decided to use them as a qualifier, a user remove the constraint only by his own opinion, thousands of users add them as statements and nobody cares about that. So thats wikidata. Since in most items the properties are as statements, we just continue with that... We have a big problem with wikidata in general. And since the wiki is growing, the mess and the problems are growing too. Αnarchy... Well, nothing is going to change, so I will just continue add them as I believe. No one take enough serious the decisions that are taking in wikidata, so everyone is doing what ever he wants... Xaris333 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

sorry, I was going to say something (I wasn't even aware of the qualifier constraint, and I've used these properties before) but I wasn't sure what to add. I don't think there's reason to despair here, or even be discouraged - sometimes a single property can be useful in different contexts and I think this is a case of that. Probably we should focus on relatively narrow areas and do what makes sense to us, and then try to reach consensus where the areas overlap, more than trying to enforce something top-down? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
There were discussions and decisions about using them as qualifiers. What's the point if anyone can change those decisions without asking the community? What's the point if we don't have the willing to correct things? I know that every decision can change, but through a discussion. Now, I am just seeing a property that the community decided to use it a as a qualifier, most of the users use it as a statement, a user just removed the constraint and life go on... And I think that this apply to many other properties... Do we have rules? And if we have, does anyone follows the rules? Xaris333 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
well we may see quite a bit of this sort of thing going forward now that constraints actually have a UI effect (before the last month or so, any constraint violations were hidden on report pages). Most constraints make sense. But a constraint that has been widely violated probably doesn't. However, perhaps we should try to get people to discuss on the property talk page before removing a constraint like this at least... ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Another discussion: Topic:Tv00hex7b7bwpd4t. TLDR: introducing this constraint generated 266060 violations without any algorithmic solution. --Lockal (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment 2 first changes make sense, because
1. sometimes next/previous links are not ambiguous and
2. they refer to whole items, rather than individual statements
So usage as qualifiers isn't necessary d1g (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
How can that be? Previous and following are relative concepts that depend on a point or item of relevance. If something precedes or follows something there always needs to be a context, it cannot happen in isolation. Philip > Anne > Andrew > Edward ... children of QE2; Philip > Andrew > Edward ... male children of QE2. Album releases of a band, etc. Years 1996 follows 1995 (previous year) and 1992 (previous leap year). Book published might follow the author's previous work; the author's previous non-fiction work; the publisher's previous work; the illustrator's previous work; and so on. There has to be context, so I am interested in your examples where you see that P155/P156 do not have a context.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Anything. Models of cars. d1g (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
A model of car has context, it doesn't exist in isolation, the models are of a brand. Australian Holden Commodore is the brand, and it has multiple models since the 1980s. Holden has also built other cars and models. Also a certain model could be built in one country then they change place of manufacture, so if your were looking to track the models built in a country or at a plant, if you put an overarching P155/156, aren't you confusing that if you wish to track other components.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to use any qualifiers in most cases: Ford Model A (Q1167651) Ford Model A (Q515001) d1g (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like something that can be qualified, and doesn't run contrary to guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: South Pole Telescope (Q1513315) follows (P155) Antarctic Submillimeter Telescope and Remote Observatory (Q4771004) - I'm not sure how that would be qualified? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
On what basis does it follow?  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
In the telescopes I think its make sense to use replaces (P1365) and replaced by (P1366). The one item replaced or replaced by the other. Is not a series. Xaris333 (talk) 06:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Aah, replaced by makes more sense. I didn't know we had those properties, thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Anything. TV seasons. d1g (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Anything. Ceremonies and events. d1g (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

So, we are going to use them also as statements? Not all user agree to use them as qualifiers only. Xaris333 (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree quite strongly with the decision to remove the constraints without discussion. I think the constraints should be re-added, and only removed if a discussion on the property talk page results in consensus to remove. --Yair rand (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I have re-added them 3 days ago. I agree with you. Xaris333 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
In the event the qualifier constraint remains, we should determine which properties P155 and P156 should qualify. part of (P361) and part of the series (P179) are the most obvious two that come to mind. (I don't want to bother Maarten by suggesting instance of (P31)). Mahir256 (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

anti-war activist is not an occupation

@GerardM: has added occupation (P106) peace activist (Q36193099) to a whole series of articles, claiming that Wikipedia says these individuals' occupation was "anti-war activist". Aside from the fact that "anti-war activist" is not an occupation, the text he claims is in the articles appears to only be a category, and appears nowhere within the text of the articles examined. Either the information must be removed as being incorrect, or it must be corrected in some way. Is there a way to correct the information? If so, does someone have a bot that could run through all instances using the correct property for this qualifier? Certainly occupation (P106) is wrong, but GerardM has refused to agree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

"'anti-war activist' is not an occupation" For some value of "occupation" (occupation (Q12737077) is defined, in English, as "any activity of a person (hobby, work, pastime...)")). I think it is very easy to occupy one's time with anti-war activism. Perhaps you meant "'anti-war activist' is not a paid job". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at the various ways occupation (P106) is defined and explained in all languages, or just seize upon a single one in English? occupation (P106) is for paid employment. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Yes, but since this discussion is in English, that's what I quoted. Here you go:

  • ast =
    cualquier actividá d'una persona (pasatiempu, trabayu, deporte, etc.)
  • bg =
    всяка продължителна дейност на човек (хоби, свободно време, работа, професионален спорт и др.)
  • bn =
    একজন ব্যক্তির কোনো কার্যকলাপ (শখ, কাজ, আহ্লাদ, পেশাদারী খেলা...)
  • ca =
    qualsevol activitat d'una persona (afició, treball, passatemps, esport professional etc.)
  • da =
    persons aktivitet, f.eks. hobby, arbejde, sport, ...
  • de =
    jede dauerhafte Aktivität eines Menschen (Hobby, Freizeit, Beruf etc.)
  • es =
    cualquier actividad de una persona (hobby, trabajo, deporte profesional, etc.)
  • et =
    igasugune inimese tegevus, nt hobi, töö, meelelahutus jne.
  • eu =
    pertsona baten edozein jarduera (zaletasuna, lana, denbora-pasa, lanbidezko kirola...)
  • fr =
    toute occupation d'une personne: passe-temps, travail, sport professionnel...

and that's just the first screen in the Labelister gadget, other than English. I also note from the item's early history that an attempt to merge it with job activity (Q192581) was reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

+1. "Occupation" =/= "paid work" by our definition. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment In English the generally acknowledged modern interpretation of "occupation" is for paid employment, or at least solid part of a career. It is would be useful to be able to have better granularity. We have many British clergyman, and gentry and peers of various realms who did the highest quality amateur research outside of their financial income. Similarly, daughters and wives of politicians, peers, etc. who did much social work funded by family or inheritance. Do we wish to differentiate between how users supported themselves in the world, compared to their claim to renown.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I recently did edits to modern payed workers, all modern professions should be sub classes of employee (Q703534).
E.g. barber surgeon (Q781850) is not linked to Q703534 d1g (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: That would be a vocation (Q829183) or avocation (Q1267055), depending on how we choose to define them. I do not know whether we have a property tied to either of these. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We have approved by (P790) for example d1g (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Employee as a superclass for modern occupations? Really so everybody who has such an occupation is not self employed.. REALLY? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. I don't think we should stress about "real one-man company" or "contractor" nuances.
  2. Self-employed don't get money from the air.
  3. It must be legal form (P1454), not primitive instance of (P31) subclass of (P279) d1g (talk) 04:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
This we "should not" is exactly why the whole class system is a quagmire. It cannot be explained it is absolutely helpful and unhelpful at the same time. GerardM (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
4 classes should be enough to cover all profit-related activities, shadow economy and illegal activities if have interest to have them together.
Q33394442, farmworker (Q33394254), manual worker (Q33394058), white-collar worker (Q368758)
Maybe we should include Q781850, but then we should agree to state "end date"=unknown to a profession or similar. d1g (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: pay attention to d1g (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
and that tells me what? You did not make your point. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: we should use affiliation (P1416) (and P1454) to identify if they they are organization of member of organization and other ways
You said "so everybody who has such an occupation is not self employed" but we shouldn't make such conclusions based on P31/P279.
P31 should answer very fundamental questions, not what you raise d1g (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We could use movement (P135) (though anti-war is more a political movement than philosophical; should we correct this property definition to explicitly allow political movements?). For example, I added it to Heather Heyer (Q36338039) with value anti-racism (Q582965). Anyway, if one person has been an anti-war activist, I think we should add "activist"/"political activist" as occupation. Emijrp (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of occupations that are no occupation at all. Poet for instance.. There are plenty of sportspeople who are known for their sport but do not make any money out of it. Affiliation is another non starter imho because poets have no affiliation either. Occupation is used as an indicator for the activities someone is known for, what occupies their attention not really their profession. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Fully agree with GerardM, and that was my point with reference to renown. How we mention and remember people is not necessarily their occupation, eg. Octavia Hill (Q437462) or John Monash (Q2731333) or Francis Ledwidge (Q1387970). How do we intend to capture that?  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I say again, that what we may need is a property for avocation (Q1267055), which is a "calling" that is not usually a paid position, such as missionary, sportsperson, artist, activist, etc. It is true that Olympic athletes and state poets are not usually given a salary for their position, but the position is still supported financially by the state. In a sense, they are paid, just not salaried. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM, billinghurst: The problem with your approach is that as for now occupation (P106) is not defined as an activity someone is known for, but as any activity of the person, which is far to broad and can include waking up in the morning, brushing one's teeth, putting on shoes, using swear-words or paying income-taxes. The only restriction as for now is that there has to be a corresponding item for the activity (which can necessarily be created) and that the statement should provide the source of the information (which meanwhile nobody takes seriously). Such a broad definition renders the data virtually useless. The fact that Wikidata editors (mostly) act reasonable and don't add statements in the whole range allowed by the definition doesn't solve the problem, just covers it temporarily, so that it surfaces later after growing to an unmanageable amount. And meanwhile brings other problems like one editor restricting himself arbitrarily on "activities one is known for", other one on "activities one makes his living with", and yet another one on "long-term or regularly repeated activities", "activities of one's own accord" a.s.o., who will engage in endless and hopeless discussions, whether a particular activity should be included or not.--Shlomo (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

We also have the problem that "Anti-war activist" implies the person was against all war of any kind, which is not always the case. Some anti-war activists oppose a particular war or cause, but support other wars or causes. Aristophanes, for example very vocally opposed the Peloponessian War in his plays, while praising the wars that had been fought against Persia. He only opposed war with neighbor Sparta, not war against foreign invaders. So @GerardM: how would we indicate that? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not indicate that, current category structures do indicate that. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: This has nothing to do with the discussed problem of occupation (P106), this is just lack o sufficiently particularised definition of peace activist (Q36193099). As for now I can't see any statement, label, description or even discussion that implies, that this item should be used for "anti-any-war activist" only and not for "anti-some-particular-war(s) activist". As soon as this is clarified (which should be done on item's talk page), we can look for a solution for Aristophanes or other ones (using qualifiers, splitting items, whatever). But we'll still be facing the question, whether "anti/pro-anything-activism" is considered occupation as understood in occupation (P106), or we should better use political ideology (P1142), political alignment (P1387) or anything else.--Shlomo (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge request

I am not too familiar with Wikidata and not at all with its tools, so I hesitate to possibly do harm by messing with the tools. But could someone possibly merge Category:Hamilton, New York (Q20088954) and Hamilton (Q3460721)? They appear to be identical. Thank you so much! --Stilfehler (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We don't merge wikimedia categories with their corresponding topics, they are considered different.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't aware that there was a difference. --Stilfehler (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Stilfehler: I have added a topic's main category (P910) to the latter item, using the former item as a value. This is how we link Wikimedia categories to their subjects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I created a page [5] and am failing to connect this page to [6]. It both would share a Wikidata ID, the link to Commons would appear automatically - this is my primary goal. --Stilfehler (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Use Commons category (P373). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
P373 doesn't create interwiki links on Commons, it's better to use the 'Other sites' sitelink to Commons instead. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
But that won't work in this case Mike Peel as the link is used in the category, so need to use an active means to pull link to the CommonsCat using WikiBase.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of labels by bots

Within the last days I observed the deletion of all labels of an id by bots. For instance it was done for Q14201291 by PLbot. Q14201291 is now a redirect to the id Q11904043 which represents a disambiguation page to different geographical sites all named أبو صير (variant أبوصير but the same). Unfortunately most of the users cannot speak Arabic that's why we are using transcripted Latin lemmas. But they differ by language using language-dependent writings like Abusir, Abu Sir, Abū Ṣīr, Abousir, Абусир and so on. Normally these labels should have both the same meaning and spelling.

These disambiguation ids will help to find the same lemma in languages with non-Latin letters and different Latin writings. It makes no sense to have a separate id for all writing variants.

I do not know/understand why bots delete these labels solely because of slight differences in writing. --RolandUnger (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata way to find these locations would be https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Abusir rather than visit a disambiguation page elsewhere.
--- Jura 12:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@RolandUnger: If you don't want to have separate items for all writing variants, what do you suggest to do with Abusir (Q29390469), Abusir (Q28965736) and Abusir (Q11904043)? Merge is not possible since each item can only have one sitelink per project. PS. I would appreciate to get notified if my work is discussed here --Pasleim (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is a problem if you have a wiki with identical articles (independently of standard or disambiguation pages). This is not a problem of Wikidata but a problem of quality control and maintenance at these wikis. With my knowledge of these ids or geographical sites I could merge them all. If a merging is not yet possible because of comprehensive merging of the wiki articles then the property P460 ("said to be the same as") should be set for both ids to find all variants for maintenance. In the case of Abu Sir the problem arose from bots which could not think about different lemma writing for the same thing.
The Reasonator tool is a nice one but not known to the general public and it should help to merge identical Wikidata ids. But if a bot will delete all labels then Reasonator cannot find a duplicate.
Maybe as a proposal: If we have different writings of (geographical) objects then we should have a list of aliases which is valid for all languages to save time to enter them for all languages. --RolandUnger (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Here, I'm an idiot (Yet Another Whinge)

First time I've needed to update something cached away in Wikidata, and I find I'm an idiot! Nothing about the process, the editing, was at all obvious. How strange that an experienced editor (since 2004 Global Contribs) would have such problems? I succeeded, but it took more than a couple attempts... Why such a mismatch with expectations?


I noticed that the repository info on page en:Blink_(web_engine) was wrong. I even first searched for the maillist conversation that pointed me to the correct information for that factoid. Then got flummoxed at no link in the Infobox text. I don't remember what tidbit finally made me clicked on the "shadow source" for info being Wikidata.

(Hmm, possibly reading the page source, then using incantations to get to en:Template:Infobox, then realizing I needed instead en:Template:Infobox_software, and then finding the description of 'repo' there, and then seeing the mention of "attempts to acquire the repository link from Wikidata." "Beware of the Leopard" time...)

But that is problem one, hinting/reminding people that text may be sourced from somewhere mysterious.

(Hey, the blaring hooting notices hidden at top of the template page that "This template uses the Wikidata property: official website (P856)"
{*{Uses Wikidata|P856}}{{Tracks Wikidata|P856}}
would have told anyone something's afoot with 'repository' (P1324), right? Or perhaps... since that notice has a direct link to here Property:P856, the same kind of shortcut should be placed inline in the template help everyplace it mentions data 'might' come from Wikidata? I mention this because there is no obvious link in that help to Wikidata. Dumb, no?)


I don't know how I finally got to the page here Blink because, again, there is no obvious way to get from "this page may reference wikidata" to the mirroring page here to check if that the wrong information is from here.

But that is problem two, no obvious link to the wikidata 'shadow' page here given a page at :foo: wiki.


So I scroll down to "source code repository" and wonder what to do. Click 'Edit'. Why is 'Save' already checked?!? How do I save the changed data? The popup help says "Enter a value". How? The save link is grayed out! I still don't know - I think I experimentally clicked "Add Qualifier" or "Add Reference" and it just happened.

BTW: what's a 'Qualifier'? What's a 'Reference'? I wandered around and found Wikidata:Glossary#Reference and then scrolled up to see qualifier. But my question was really, how and where do I enter my justification for the change? How do I point someone to the 'proof' the change was reasonable? I still don't know if I did the right/best thing!

But that is problem three, how does one edit this pineapple correctly without everything blowing up?

(What is the best thing to do? How does one say "I know this item value is true because of the information I found at <blah>, be it web, book, newspaper, etc." ?)


A key problem described here is, how do you help strangers to quickly fix that one fact they found wrong in another wiki. They don't *want* to be here. They shouldn't have to jump through fiery hoops. Y'all have reams and reams of help, but that is actually a hindrance for the greatest number of editors, those from somewhere else. (Sorry, the important editors for Wikidata are not the most frequent people here, but rather the infrequent or one-time visitors.) Asking people at Wikidata:Introduction#Where_to_get_started to take a tour on elephant back is really discouraging.

And isn't it strange that a wiki, a set of wikis, somehow makes it quite difficult to navigate to information? Is this perhaps a missed facet for implementation of Wikidata at the "system level"? Poor Ms. U. N. Owen has near no chance to bridge all the gaps in order to remedy the smallest data problem. This is an implementation problem hampering a good idea.

Please take the time I've spent describing my experiences as an indication of how far from 'good' that experience was. There are far too many hurdles to jump now that data 'might' come from Wikidata. Without lowering those hurdles you leave the implementation unfinished, incomplete, and far from practical for your average editor. Shenme (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, look, at en:Blink_(web_engine) in the left sidebar under 'Tools', "Wikidata item" ! How helpfully mysterious to the occasional editor. Shenme (talk)
@Shenme: First: Come here and complain that templates on Wikipedia are poorly designed is not going to give you any sympathies here.
Some helpful soul over there has pointed out a gooder template, how it has listed a more complete set of interrelationships to Wikidata, and how uses of the template even include shortcuts (the pencil icons) next to each imported value in the infobox. All of these go very far towards giving the confused editor things to click on and hope to be unconfused. Shenme (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


Secondly: Your experience, as you describe it above, summarize well what I feel about VisualEditor or Flow. It takes some times to learn, and it does not help if you think that the idea behind them were bad from the beginning. (Belive me, WYSIWYG (Q170542) is pure evil!!!) -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I don't have to time to deal with all your whinges, so I deal with just one. There is a project to allow the editing of data from the wikis more directly in WD with a user interface, it just isn't here yet. The thing about fixing a data point in WD is that it fixes the same data point in each wiki, and that becomes a whole lot quicker and easier to do once. Similarly with centrally stored data, it allows the creation of pages in multiple languages that can at least show data in a contextual language where a wiki is yet to create a specific article. Rome wasn't built in a day.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I very much understood the great promise of centralizing data that should be uniform across the multiple wikis. That is why I went to the trouble of correcting something, here, rather than just jamming it in locally at enwiki.
When Rome conquered, they didn't allow uncertainty about how things would be done from then on. They made sure the rules were painfully obvious. No one ever complained "but we didn't know how to pay our taxes!" It remains the case here that how to submit taxes (or data) is unclear to the average plebeian. Having to travel to Rome, learn passable Latin and obtain favorable omens just to correct your middle name on the last census... Shenme (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


@Shenme: thanks for taking the time to point out your challenges in fixing something here. As billinghurst mentioned there is development work ongoing to make it easier to edit wikidata entries directly from wikipedia. However, I think the main point of your complaint was uncertainty in how to source the change you wanted to make which will surely still be a problem for more direct wikidata editing from the language wikipedias. I know Lea Lacroix (WMDE) has been working to get documentation here improved - Lea, should we perhaps focus on a one-pager simple outline for people familiar with regular wikipedia editing, on how to fix one claim with appropriate referencing? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above, there are certainly improvements possible at the originating wikis. (I love the pencil icon shortcuts in the mentioned template.) Is it possible a "first visit" here can kick off a popup or page-top link to the quick cookbook recipe "how to make an omelette"? If they've just been dropped here from a wiki page pencil link, and it all looks so different and strange, a friendly smile and quick recipe will be very enticing. Shenme (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello,
Thanks Shenme for your description of the problems. I'm sorry that you encountered such troubles while editing.
About documentation: the first part of the issue is about the infobox on English Wikipedia. I think that the documentation should be improved there. Unfortunately, since each Wikipedia develop their own version(s) of infoboxes, we can't really provide a global documentation. We've been also working on Wikidata:How to use data on Wikimedia projects but it doesn't really help the casual editor, it's more for people who want to create new templates on their wiki. Maybe a simple page about how to edit Wikidata for Wikipedians could help - but again, with the problem of the different infoboxes from a Wikipedia to another.
I tried to reproduce the problem you encountered while trying to modify a link and add a reference, but I couldn't. If you edit Wikidata again and find this issue another time, I'd be glad to know about it so we can track a possible bug. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

perceptible physical object (Q337060)

Any possible difference between perceptible physical object (Q337060) and physical object (Q223557) ? d1g (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one is a philosophical concept (something perceived), and the other is a physical concept (something that has measurable properties). There's lots of overlap, but we seem to have 5 distinct language wikipedias with entries for both, so they are definitely deserving of being distinguished. The German terms "Gegenstand" vs "Körper (Physik)" seem quite distinct. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
perceptible physical object (Q337060) is very similar to object (Q488383) IMO d1g (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Both are different views/concepts about entity (Q35120). --Succu (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment If this item because of Aristotle works (0199326002, p 78), then I suggest to use has characteristic (P1552) for items about senses and what else is meant about "perceptible"
I do exactly this for food products. E.g. taste can be only with specific chemical elements.
Aristotle had no information what was where, so their explanation is almost always without examples (5 senses e.t.c) d1g (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Mind to decipher 0199326002, d1g? --Succu (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
ISBN number and page d1g (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Categories for Cities?

A general question, but a specific example.

Cebu City Q1467 only had the category Q104157 "City in the Philippines". I added Q515 "City" for a top-level description of what it is. Is this the intended approach? Should I have added Q1549591 (big city) instead? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

For instance of (P31) (it's better to avoid the term category, this can get confused with Wikipedia categories), you should generally use the most specific item available - so city of the Philippines (Q104157) rather than city (Q515). The Philippines one is already a subclass of "city", so there is no need to add both - a properly constructed search will find both items marked with city (Q515) and items marked with any subclass of it.
big city (Q1549591) covers a different aspect of the item to city of the Philippines (Q104157), so it would be reasonable to include both (assuming it is indeed a sufficiently large city).
The one major exception to this is people, who should always simply be instance of (P31):human (Q5), not "woman", "doctor", "Danish person", or any other more specific group. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The reason why we don't use "instance of woman" or "instance of doctor" is that we have more precise properties to express these relations: sex or gender (P21), occupation (P106). The same I think about "big city". We have population (P1082) to express how big a city is, so adding big city (Q1549591) in addition to city of the Philippines (Q104157) or city (Q515) seems superfluous to me. --Pasleim (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 --Marsupium (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That seems fair! I had assumed that big city (Q1549591) was recommended as it's fairly widely used, but I agree that it seems unnecessary (and a bit arbitrary) given that we can also represent population. I wonder if it's worth removing it in any case where population is listed. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Means to flag constraint suggestions and/or variations?

Do we have a template to apply, or a category to add, where we have suggested on a property talk page for a variation or suggestion for a constraint? Leaving a suggestion sitting on a talk page without a little flag often means it can not be noticed by those with the skills to do so.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata and redirects in Wikipedia

We have Joest Henne (Q24035983) that is the same person as Joest Henne (Q30229797). In sv.Wikiepedia there is an redirect Jost Henne -> Joest Henne. Question What is the correct way to just have "one" Wikidata object i.e. I would like to have my Property Q24035983#P3217 only at one place but maybe in Wikidata indicate that a merge has been done.... - Salgo60 (talk)

The svwiki link to "Jost Henne" should be removed, and Q30229797 merged into Q24035983 - there should be only one wikidata item for this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It doesn't make sense to keep two items about the same person. I have → ← Merged them. Thanks for bringing it up. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Salgo60: see Help:Merge and also to note the merge tool in the gadgets.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

means to record location of a plate/illustration within a work, though not through a page number?

I see in Leuchtenbergia principis. Noble Leuchtenbergia (Q14554954) that the image has been identified as page(s) (P304) then "plate nnnn" which is a constraint violation. I am seeking the community's opinion on how an illustration's location should be identified within a work. We can sometimes put a page number, however, sometimes it will be "opposite p. nnn" or some other identifier that is not a page number though is evident within a work. Do we have an existing means outside of P304 to do this? Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You could probably use section, verse, paragraph, or clause (P958) with value "plate xx", but I think a new property might be the most elegant solution. - PKM (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't mix with page numbers, wait for property
Wikidata:Property proposal/Illustration number or similar d1g (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Displayed image in every item

It would be great that every image inserted in an item as a Property:P18 would also be displayed in the upper right corner so you can even more quickly recognize the object. What do you think? --Janezdrilc (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you enabled ImageHeader in your preferences? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Image doesn't appear when window size is small.
If I zoom out 50% it is always present.
Chromium 60 (~August 2017) d1g (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. In my case the image needs 80% or less to appear. --Janezdrilc (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the image does always appear, but not always in the upper right corner. If you have a more narrow window the image appears in the left column, after all statements and identifiers, but before the links to different projects. I can make the image "disappear" from the right column even if the zoom is 50% or lower if the window is made small enough. This "dynamic layout" of the Wikidata interface (web pages) was very confusing to me on my first visits here. --Larske (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

P393 or P1545

Which one? (or something else?)

(Please don't discuss about P3450). I want to use P393 or P1545 as a qualifier.

Problem

P1545 seems more logical to be used. But, honestly, I haven't understood the difference between those two properties. 

SELECT ?item
WHERE
{
    { ?item wdt:P3450 [] }
    { ?item wdt:P393 [] }
}
Try it! 
SELECT ?item
WHERE
{
    { ?item wdt:P3450 [] }
    { ?item wdt:P1545 [] }
}
Try it!

Xaris333 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

labels from series ordinal (P1545) are more appropriate for events.
Constraint at series ordinal (P1545) can be changed. d1g (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
No need to change. I think is better to use it as a qualifier. Xaris333 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick statements

Hello. I am truing to add title (P1476) as a qualifier (source) using quick statements. But I can't. I think the problem is the language. How can I add the language of the title? I am using S1476 "1936/37 Cyprus Cup" . Xaris333 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Xaris333: Have you tried (S1476 en:"1936/37 Cyprus Cup")? P1476 is a monolingual text property. Replace "en" with whatever language you like. Mahir256 (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
It works! Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Hokusai and the Kai Province (Q17227583) is an instance of what?

As its first paragraph says, Hokusai and the Kai Province (Q17227583) is a Wikipedia article containing general remarks about the relationship between the painter Katsushika Hokusai (Q5586) and the Kai Province (Q858076).

What is it an instance of?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Exact reason why facet of (P1269) was created, we don't need P31 here;
Only 2 items should get P31, not 3rd. d1g (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg:
I don't understand what you mean... items should have a instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279) statements... what do you do here ? what are these items ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
we don't need P31 or P279 at Q17227583
only Q5586 and the Q858076 should have P31 or P279 d1g (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg:
I don't understand what you mean... your second answer is no more explicit than the first... I tried to read the discussion on facet of (P1269) but this in not any clearer :((
could you please develop and explicit ? and if you can't, could somebody please explain ?

use of facet of (P1269) property

@Andrew Gray:
thanks but I still do not understand : AFAIK, all items should have a P31 or P279, and I have never seen any instruction to do something else...
is there a help page, or discussion, or anything explaining the facet of (P1269) property, and how it is to be used ? that's the first time I see it used, and I would like to understand :/
thanks for your help --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
see examples, most of them don't have P31 or have something else Help:Basic membership properties d1g (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a class for "Wikipedia article relating two or more concepts" similar to "Wikimedia list article", "Wikimedia disambiguation page", etc. ?? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support Mahir256 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, ✓ Done :) See Wikimedia page relating two or more distinct concepts (Q37152856). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if it's a good idea to include "Wikimedia" in its label.
--- Jura 08:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Change labels to other languages

Hello. Because many users are confusing sports season of a sports club (Q1539532) with season (Q27020041), please change the labels and/or the descriptions for the languages you know to show that:

  • the first one is used only for seasons of a sports club, not for a season of a sports league
  • the second one is used only for a season of a sports league or cup, not for seasons of a sports club

Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Such widely used items like sports season of a sports club (Q1539532) shouldn't be transformed in something else! I suggest restoring the version before 30 July 2017‎ as now there is a total mess: different series of items like 1950 Formula One season (Q68926), Tennis-Bundesliga 2000 (Men) (Q163626), 2002 American Le Mans Series season (Q294472) have sports season of a sports club (Q1539532) in P31... --XXN, 13:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Already in July 2015 the meaning of sports season of a sports club (Q1539532) was specificed to be for sports clubs [7]. In September 2016 then was season (Q27020041) created for sports leagues. I don't think that restoring the state of July 2017 will here be helpful. --Pasleim (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to solve the problem and to correct the statements at the items (I have used any tool I know.). But are almost 50000 items with sports season of a sports club (Q1539532). It's difficult work to find which of them must have season (Q27020041) due to the huge number of the items... Xaris333 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #274

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • Development
    • Working on making constraints work on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
    • Working on making it easier to see when input in property or value fields is not recognized/wrong (phabricator:T170531)
    • Added new language codes (eya, fuf, ood, pjt, yap, zun) for use in monolingual text values
    • Fixed an issue with badges not being shown next to interwiki links on Wikipedia and co (phabricator:T172592)
    • Worked on showing labels when linking to a redirect (phabricator:T96553)
    • Worked on making change dispatching to Wikipedia and co work better so changes made on Wikidata show up there in a reasonable time. There were issues because of significantly increased edit activity on Wikidata.

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.


My Entry Keeps Getting Blocked?

Hello, i have attempted to make a wikedata item for my small business and it keeps getting deleted. I get the message that i was making a "promotion only page", i need your help. The only info that i am listing is:

  • address
  • url
  • logo
  • industry
  • etc.

I am only listing the basic info that a business would list, i don't see anything promotional about listing basic contact and location data but i'm not the expert. Can you give advice as to how someone would list the basic info of a small business.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.59.210.186 (talk • contribs) at 12:01, 21 August 2017‎ (UTC).

When somebody else have noticed your business and thought it is good enough to write an article in Wikipedia about it, then it is time to add an item here about it. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article is not a requirement for inclusion in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
See our policy on notability: WIkidata:Notability, which determines what we do and do not include in Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Even if the business-item here potentially can be kept according to our policy, it is not our purpose here to do marketing! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
If they present correct information, then this shouldn't be a problem.
But as a project we could grow a pile of outdated items which few have interest to update (even to set "end date"). Somebody would need to update these item later, some things to consider:
What does that have to do with what I said? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How to express different alternatives for value-type constraints ?

What is the correct way to indicate that different acceptable alternatives exist, when specifying a property constraint (P2302) : value-type constraint (Q21510865) ?

For example, position held (P39) can take a value that is either

(Sometimes made more precise through attching the qualifier of (P642) to the generic value).

How should one indicate this in the P2302 specification for position held (P39) ?

I tried simply adding subclass of (P279) below instance of (P31) in the statement (diff), to indicate that either is possible, but this is now producing a red error message on Property talk:P39.

Is there a different way to indicate acceptable alternatives ? Jheald (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

complex constrains
if you need assistance, leave requests at talk pages or "request a query". d1g (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
(ec) A complex constraint would be one way to go, but I'd prefer to use the standard mechanism if possible.
I see that Metamorforme42 has tried changing the relation required to instance or subclass of (Q30208840) (diff), which looks like it may be the solution needed. Jheald (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Please re-read the phabricator task. Such a constraint is currently not implemented, neither by the daily reports nor the gadget. While experimenting is desirable, I don't think we should change these constraints back and forth just because you attend some work shop the day after tomorrow.
--- Jura 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: The workshop was the day before yesterday.
IMO it's better to have a statement that accurately expresses the constraint required, even if that value is not currently understood, and so the constraint is not currently implemented; rather than specify a false constraint just because it can be implemented, which causes people to put false statements on the data in order to make false constraint warnings go away.
If necessary, as D1gggg suggests, we can implement instance or subclass of (Q30208840) as a custom constraint, until the centrally-maintained constraint machinery can take over. Jheald (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


I suggest leaving instance or subclass of (Q30208840) on it for the moment, even if the constraint mechanism doesn't currently understand that value, so can't enforce it; and meanwhile add encouragement to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T169858 so that soon it does get understood and acted on. Jheald (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
So @Yair rand:, I just imagined the (entirely appropriate) chain mayor (Q30185) subclass of (P279) public office (Q294414) , subclass of (P279) position (Q4164871) did I ?
And your nonsense of insisting on writing mayor (Q30185) instance of (P31) position (Q4164871) when (i) mayor isn't a position -- it's a class of positions; and (ii) the P279 chain already expresses this.
Fine, let's see what the rest of the community thinks, if you really are determined to persist with this nonsense.
External input requested at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Heads_of_state_and_government, essentially as to whether items like mayor (Q30185) are an instance or a subclass. Also items like Mayor of London (Q38931), since you appear to have restored a constraint (diff) that all values for P39 statements need to have a subclass of (P279) set -- which seems completely crazy to me. "Mayor of London" is a position, and there is only one of it. Jheald (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A Few More Paleontology Questions

  1. Is information about individual fossil specimens desirable for Wikidata?
  2. Is it possible or desirable to input multiple estimates for some aspect of a fossil specimen or taxon (eg Paleontologist Paul estimated this dinosaur's live weight to be 10 tons but Fossil Hunter Francine estimated it to be 12 tons).
  3. Is there a way to summon or transclude information in Wikidata to Wikipedia (eg could I say in a Wikipedia article "Examplosaurus first evolved during the [wikidataitemfortheageofexamplosaurus]" and have it automatically update with the information from Wikidata?).
  4. Is it possible to specify that the age of a prehistoric animal has a significant range of uncertainty? (eg "Kronosaurus first appeared sometime in the Aptian-Albian range")?

Abyssal (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I changed your request to an ordered list. Now answers:
  1. Not sure if I understand correctly. If you can create items about individual fossil specimens which fulfill the notability criteria, you should in principle be able to do that. If you are unsure whether this is the case, or if we are talking about a really large number of individual fossils, you might want to describe your plans first in more detail here.
  2. You can provide multiple claims for each property, but it would be useful to add serious references according to Help:Sources to each individual claim. It might be useful to work with ranks to perfer one of them over the other (e.g. "most reliable source", "most sources report that value", etc.)
  3. Technically yes (parser functions #property: and #statement:, or Module:Wikidata). However, many communities are somewhat reluctant to allow this.
  4. Properties with quantity data type allow to provide uncertainty intervals by numeric bounds. In case your property expects a Wikibase-Item as value, you might want to use qualifiers such as earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326). (I hope that the time values you need are actually possible with these qualifiers).
--MisterSynergy (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Annoying announcement

I'm user w:de:User:Silvicola of dewiki and personally didn't ever do any work here in Wikidata. Since a couple of days, on every consultation of the notices kicked out to me, I get the same thank you for my 100th edit here in wikidata. Yet I haven't even an account here and every try to enter here with my SUL account parameters did fail. So did every try to create the corresponding account here. (Please note: I'm presently not really interested to do here any work, I just wanted to get somehow rid of this annoyance.) Upon consulting “my” user contributions here, I found a list of exactly 100 lemma moves in dewiki, which seem all to have triggered corresponding action logged here, perhaps due to some script or so.

I can very well sustain one thank you, but a thank you repeated ad nauseam is too much. I still hope that after my next lemma move in the dewiki main namespace, this senseless repetition will end. But in any case, others must have suffered and will suffer from the same insistance. Perhaps one or the other of them might even think at pushing around abusively article name space lemmas in dewiki or on some other wiki simply to bring this stray automatism to an earlier end.

Trigger once upon arrival at the milestone, but don't trigger upon stay at the milestone. --2003:6A:6D45:500:4838:F7B9:C87F:B544 20:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • When you move a page in a Wikimedia project that is connected to Wikidata, you automatically perform an edit here to update the sitelink -- without being notified about this edit. Exceptions: the moving user does not have a local account at Wikidata, or they are blocked here (both not the case for you).
  • You have a connected SUL account, as far as I understand this result. The fact that you can (implicitly) edit Wikidata supports this finding.
  • Notifications for milestones are very common in many Wikimedia projects, but they are delivered only once and visible until they are marked as read.
  • I don't think that another page move at dewiki would help here.
  • So the problem seems to be that you can't log on to Wikidata for whatever reason, and you thus cannot successfully mark the milestone notification as read. What does is say if you try to log on?
--MisterSynergy (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata IDs in Openstreetmap

Openstreetmap has had a "Wikidata" key for years, but still most items use a wikipedia key rather than the Wikidata key. This is much less useful. A Wikidata key would be so much more useful.

I recall reading somewhere that mappers were reluctant to bot-fix this, because sometimes Wikipedia articles do not exactly match the linked Wikidata item. Unless I am missing something huge, this is essentially bullshit.

Can anyone with OSM connections push for the simple move of converting Wikipedia links to Wikidata links ?

Ok sorry for the probably fruitless rant, but it's frustrating to see that things that should be so simple are going along so slowly. --Zolo (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

well, having some experience trying to convert wikipedia links from another dataset into wikidata links, the actual problem is most likely that the wikipedia link is to a page that *contains* information about the linked item, but isn't exactly about the linked item. For example an OSM entry for a particular building might point to a wikipedia link for the company that operates out of the building, not to the building itself. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. It does not seem to apply to OpenStreetMap, or at least, it's not supposed to. Per doc [8]
You may tag secondary attributes of the feature by preceding the wikipedia key with the name of the attribute, separated by a colon (:). The value of such a key would be the same as the normal wikipedia key, but referring to the appropriate wikipedia page. For example, operator:wikipedia=en:McDonald's on a McDonald's fast food unit (but don't forget to also tag operator=McDonald's, because the former tag doesn't replace the latter).
and
only provide links to articles which are 'about the feature'. A link from St Paul's Cathedral in London to an article about St Paul's Cathedral on Wikipedia is fine. A link from a bus depot to the company that operates it is not.
I should admit it cites the following (that 'applies to almost no case'), that more or less contradicts the above requirement:
One example where it is appropriate to provide additional explicit links to articles in secondary languages is where the subject is included in an article on a broader subject in the secondary language, for example to the English article which the particular museum in France while French wikipedia has only wikipedia:fr=Monuments et sites de Paris. In another example the structure of subjects in articles cannot be matched 1:1 with interlanguage links (or maybe there are several articles for the same object). In these circumstances use the format wikipedia:lang=page title for the secondary languages.
In any case, that seems like a secondary concern. Would seem much more productive to just upload all Wikidata ids and clean up the few problematic cases afterwards. --Zolo (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be possible to match OSM node types to Wikidata classes, so that a bot could convert Wikipedia links to Wikidata ids only in the case where the node type and the item type match? We already have OpenStreetMap tag or key (P1282) that could be used for that. Intuitively, that would already cover a decent number of cases, and would be pretty safe. But I can imagine there are cases where the type mismatch is spurious and the Wikidata id should be added anyway. − Pintoch (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
My knowlege of OSM is rather shallow, but I think wikipedia|wikidata links should rather go to shapes or ways than nodes. That's also where I have usually seen them (I don't know how to get real states about that).
I suppose we could try a filter by class, but what I see is OpenStreetMap tag or key (P1282) are not subclasses of geographic entites, so that seems rather hard to use [9]. Anyway, if a Wikidata link in OSM is wrong, chances are the Wikipedia link is wrong as well and should be deleted anyway. --Zolo (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
"push for the simple move of converting Wikipedia links to Wikidata links": You are far from the first person to ever suggest this to the OSM community. But for many reasons, the OSM community is very wary of massive bot editing and will reject any such proposal if the result is less than 99.9% correct. For example, there are many OSM objects that point to a Wikipedia disambiguation page instead of to an actual article (because things move around in Wikipedia). So blindly adding a Wikidata tag pointing to a Wikimedia disambiguation page Wikidata item is a huge no-no even if it would result in relatively few false-positives. Of course a bot can learn to avoid auto-tagging disambiguation pages but that is just one example; there are potentially many other possible problems. As far as I can tell, the current OSM consensus is to let mappers update/add the Wikidata tag slowly but surely instead of letting a bot do the job.
Anyway, here are two posting to the main OSM mailing list by User:Yurik (senior software engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation) to help add Wikidata tags to OSM objects: [10] and [11]. So there's already an ongoing effort to essentially do what you want. You should also read his OSM Wiki page about OSM–Wikidata questions to get an overview of the many problems of further interlinking OSM and Wikidata. —seav (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I realize [12] has not been mentioned in this thread yet. It is a great app, give it a try! − Pintoch (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I described my efforts to merge OSM and Wikidata in the same SPARQL database. As seav mentioned, linking to disambigs is one of the problems, so my service helps find it with a query (still requires manual fixing), as well as many other similar queries. Any help to actually fix the data is welcome. At some point, I hope it integrates into MapRoulette challenges as well. --Yurik (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pintoch, Seav, Yurik: ok thanks. The thing is those wrong links are basically already there in the form of wrong Wikipedia links. If the OSM community could agree that the wikipedia key is obsolete, we could upload all Wikidata links, and then clean them up using Yurik's tool. It would not really add new errors (except when the wikipedia sitelink is wrong, but that's not catchable through Sparql anyway). It seems a lot simpler than dealing with Wikidata keys + Wikipedia keys | candidate Wikidata keys. But of course, that supposes that the OSM would agree with drop maintenance the Wikipedia key in favor of the Wikidata key. But obviously that implies that the OSM community agrees to focus on Wikidata instead of Wikipedia.
Well I suppose that with tools like https://osm.wikidata.link/ things can go a bit faster, until now I was using Wikidata ids I need directly through the map, and that's painfully slow. FYI, frwiki is now using the OSM wikidata link to get the geoshape in the infobox, like in fr:Château de Southsea. --Zolo (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
“But of course, that supposes that the OSM would agree with drop maintenance the Wikipedia key in favor of the Wikidata key.” This has also been suggested to the OSM community. While I personally agree with this because Wikidata QIDs are more stable than Wikipedia article titles, the general sentiment of the OSM community is that they prefer using the wikipedia=* tag instead of the wikidata=* tag since it is more "user-friendly" for mappers to add. Most OSM users don't understand Wikidata, much less how to find the QID for the correct concept that matches the OSM object. (For example, some people have wrongly tagged every McDonald's store in a locality in OSM with the Wikipedia article on the company/brand.) So it will be hard to convince OSM users to add wikidata=* tag instead of or in addition to the wikipedia=* tag. As both a Wikidata and OSM user, I personally try to add wikidata=* tags whenever I can. —seav (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Eclipses, and how to talk about them

Hello! It would be a good moment to decide how to express the information about eclipses (magnitude, gamma, starting time, route...) in Wikidata. Maybe we could make a good work with the current one and go backwards using template harvesting! -Theklan (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

How about parameter of eclipse (Q37714908) (->magnitude of eclipse (Q1268559), gamma (Q827951), ...)? --Fractaler (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a pending property for contact times of eclipses --Pasleim (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Catalogue of the library of the American Philosophical Society

Bonjour,

Je viens de créer le Catalogue of the library of the American Philosophical Society.

  1. Qui veut bien vérifier les données et compléter les informations ?
  2. Mon objectif est de préciser dans un champ que les ouvrages que je saisis sont répertoriés dans ce Catalogue of the library of the American Philosophical Society. En indiquant le numéro de l'ouvrage dans le catalogue original et le lien (c'est un id, je suppose) vers la fiche sur le site du catalogune. Comment dois-je faire cela proprement ?

Je vous remercie pour votre attention. --Ambre Troizat (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Limit edits to English language label of properties to logged-in users?

Looking at edits by anons of the last 30 days, it seems that most edits are either vandalism, vandalism reversal or people mistaking the property label for the value to be entered. The few edits that could actually be considered appropriate didn't persist either.

I'd suggest that we try to set up an edit filter that blocks anonymous edits to English labels on properties.
--- Jura 10:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

We could at least try this 2 weeks or a month  Weak support d1g (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose for a single language (support if applied generally). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is that?
--- Jura 13:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I have not seen random IPs editing any language other than English by mistake, so I cannot see why we should protect other languages. New logged in users, yes, but not IPs. - -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I tend to  Support. Maybe other big languages as well. --Edgars2007 (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 Weak support as far as the policy question goes. I'm however not sure how much effort this would take from the side of the programming team and I think there are more important tasks. ChristianKl (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We may set up this constraint on our own. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support --XXN, 08:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Bonnie & Clyde (cont.)

Hi I made some changes to Help:Handling sitelinks overlapping multiple items and I think we need more examples of the issue as well as the possible relationships. I only scratched the surface and before I go further I would like invite some participation from domain specialists to add their 2c such as the "fruit/tree" people. I remain as ever convinced that is is a docuumentation issue. Thx. Jane023 (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

  • As items are less empty, it should essentially become a non-issue for Wikidata. Either the article is about be same as the statements and it can be linked, or should be on another item.
    For Wikipedias, it's mostly a data access question: which item do they want statements and/or sitelinks from. If a Wikipedia wants any stub link to lists at other languages, it could build a feature that does that.
    --- Jura 08:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes I agree. My problem with understanding people who want this is that I have trouble trying to figure out what it is that they believe they *can't* do as it is now. It seems to me that there needs to be more help documentation on both sides; the side of Wikidata (what inter-item links can do for search purposes) and the side of Wikipedia (what an infobox, authority control template or other Wikipedia-side functionality is desired). Jane023 (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not a valid argument. There is nothing that couldn't be done before Wikidata that can be done now. The issue is not at about what can or can't be done, but instead what can or can't be done easily or effectively or with fewer errors. For example, how can one easily go from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2319886 to the Wikipedia page that has the most information about her? Without pre-knowledge, any link to another Wikidata item is a possibility. The other direction can be as difficult or even more. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "There is nothing that couldn't be done before Wikidata that can be done now."
not entirely sure about that argument.. could one set interwikis on w:Bonnie Parker (a redirect) or to enwiki from no:Bonnie Parker (an article)? dewiki had an infobox and interwikis on a redirect. Linking enwiki on Q2319886 shouldn't be possible, but somehow someone managed doing it. Obviously, it will be mess once as soone as someone creates an article at w:Bonnie Elizabeth Parker. Due to a still unresolved pagemove bug, this happens occasionally.
--- Jura 05:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Tool for authority control import needed

Every now and then I do import authority control numbers to Wikidata, mostly from VIAF. Take a look at Russian State Film and Photo Archive (Q4398058): it's 9 identifiers, all of them imported by hand. It's a tedious task and I wonder if there is a tool that makes it easier to batch import ids for a particular Q. I don't mean batch import of large datasets, it's a task for the tech wizards. I'm a casual contributor and would like something simple that would allow me to, say, specify the VIAF number and import all the other authority control IDs listed at the respective https://viaf.org/ entry (as in: type 301221768 and automatically import 301221768 as VIAF cluster ID (P214), 0000 0004 0854 4117 as ISNI (P213) and A20924975 as NLP ID (old) (P1695). It's possible to do by hand, but it's a tedious task and takes ages. (a cross-post from Wikidata talk:WikiProject Authority control#Is there a tool?, @Jneubert: suggested I posted here instead and suggested A starting point could be the "justlinks" function of the VIAF API: http://viaf.org/viaf/123911488/justlinks.json (if you know the VIAF id), or http://viaf.org/viaf/sourceID/WKP%7CQ4398058/justlinks.json for Wikidata item Q4398058 (so you would not even have to build the VIAF URL yourself, if it is present in the item), give you all the links VIAF has. Or is there a tool that does just that already? Halibutt (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There are importScript('User:Tpt/viaf.js'); by Tpt and importScript( 'User:Magnus_Manske/authority_control.js' ); by Magnus_Manske. — Ayack (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Are you a potential WikiFactMine collaborator?

I spent three days on a stall at Wikimania not long ago, and have been updating the Wikidata:WikiFactMine pages here to give a quite full view of the project. The project applies fact mining to recent open access papers downloaded from Europe PubMed Central (Q5412157). Custom sets of search terms called "dictionaries" are used, and recently we have almost completely switched over to SPARQL queries to generate these dictionaries.

If you are interested in trying out our highly-parallel search technology, I'd be glad to help you. So far we have concentrated on plants, diseases and drugs. I'd be particularly interested in increasing what we do in fields of chemistry, where I have worked recently on alloys and terpenoids, and food science. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Changing description from шаблон Википедија on шаблон на Википедији

Hi, i want to change in description from шаблон Википедија on шаблон на Википедији. With replace.py not work.. How to change? Zoranzoki21 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a bot which works on this field and could do the needed fix (pinging @Emijrp:). This description is for Wikimedia template (Q11266439) items. P.S. it should be Викимедији. --XXN, 16:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I have user-bot flag and I want to fix it. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Zoranzoki21: in Pywikibot there is no ready script for changing terms (description, etc.) on Wikidata; you have to write one yourself. Alternatively, you can use QuickStatements if you want to do the changes yourself. --XXN, 10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. I removed me flag, because I do not know to use bot on wikidata.. Please who have a bot here to change it. Excuse me. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. --XXN, 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: XXN, 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There is an wikidata item (ab) for wikipedia articles covering several concepts. To distinguish the individual concepts there is one wikidata item for each (item a and item b). Item a is used as a statement value on several other items. A wikipedia is using the data from these items in its infoboxes. It has only an article connected to item ab (article ab), not to a. Infobox data referring to item a should appear with a link to article ab. How can this be realised?

To have a specific example: There is a current situation involving the items historiography (Q50675) (dealing both with historical works and the discipline of studying the ways of writing history - an example of item ab), item historiography (Q30277550) (dealing with the type of work - an example of item a), Histories (Q746583) (an example of an item with item a as statement value) having "historiography" as its genre, the Spanish wikipedia article Historias (Heródoto) connected to Histories (Q746583) and the Spanish wikipedia article Historiography Historiografía connected to historiography (Q50675). People from the Spanish wikipedia (e.g. Xabier) want the infobox-entry "historiografía" to link to Historiography Historiografía. The current "solution" is to use historiography (Q50675) as a statement value for genre. But in my opinion this is rather undesirable as historiography (Q50675) does not represent historiography as a genre (alone). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the job of WP to choose the correct WD item, we can't help them when several subjects are mixed together in one article. Once the item is selected then it is access to the data of others items using lua code. You just need to know the Q number of other items and used them when performing data extraction from WD. Snipre (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hm... What do you mean with "this is the job of WP to choose the correct WD item"? As far as I see the WD-item they "chose" is all right (Histories (Q746583) for Historias (Heródoto)). I also think that they're absolutely fine with the extracted data. All they are missing now is a link to Historiography Historiografía, or basically a redirect from the non-existent Spanish article for historiography (Q50675) to Historiography Historiografía. Should they just give up fetching these data from wikidata and should I recommend them to provide the genre-information locally? -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Valentina.Anitnelav My comment is about your general example: an article about a and b, where a has a dedicated item in WD and b too. The choice of item a or item b for article ab is under the responsibility of WP contributors. We can't decide here in WD what is the best solution.
Then if you know the item a and the item b, meaning if you know the Q number of these items, you can extract the data from both items in your article (even if your article is connected to only one item) by using parsing functions described in that page. But nobody can tell from WP which are the Q numbers for a and b: you have to find them yourself and then you can use the parser functions instead of the values in order to always be connected to WD. Snipre (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the link, but I fear this is not a solution for the problem (not even in the general form): the problem is not how to fetch data from item a and/or item b to display them on article ab. The problem is how to link from an wikipedia article displaying item a (or its label) in its wikidata-generated infobox via item a to wikipedia article ab. Have a look at De bello Hispaniensi. This item should have a link to Historiography Historiografía in its infobox (via "Historiografía", fetched from historiography (Q30277550)), but they can't have the link unless changing item De Bello Hispaniensi (Q783927) in their favour (by changing the value of genre (P136) from historiography (Q30277550) to historiography (Q50675)), but this change is rather undesirable for wikidata as historiography (Q50675) is ambiguous and historiography (Q30277550) is the item for the genre. -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there is a real problem here. Wikidata items are about a single (possible composite) thing. Wikipedia pages, and Wiktionary pages, may be about multiple things that are related in a multitude of different ways. It thus seems that site links should be many to many per sister project and also be able to be to fragments of a page. For example, the Wiktionary page for tree has at least four corresponding Wikidata items, each of which should site link to this one page (and better to the correct definition in the page). I ran across this problem with respect to several kinds of products and was putting together a long argument for loosening the restrictions on site links when I found this and other discussions of the problem. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Peter, I partly agree and partly disagree here. Agree: The alignment of individual Wikipedias and Wikidata is sometimes not perfect, and it would be good to extend it in such cases. One could achieve this by allowing items that have no article on some Wikipedia ("Bonnie") to link to sections of composite articles ("Bonnie and Clyde"). This would allow the creation of a ("weaker") sitelink where there is none now. There are multiple technical approaches to do this, including links to redirects. Disagree: I am against many-to-many sitelinks. The purpose of sitelinks is not to describe what some Wikipedia article is about in terms of Wikidata items, but to describe what a particular Wikidata item is about in terms of Wikipedia articles. Since Wikidata almost always has higher granularity, linking to multiple Wikipedia articles in the same language is not useful for getting a better description of a Wikidata item. Sitelinks are supposed to provide additional "grounding" for Wikidata items, and for this to work it is crucial that they unambiguously identify one concept (this might be a composite of several concepts, if the item represents this composite). Linking a specific Wikidata item to a more general Wikipedia articles or even to a set of articles on different topics will increase conceptual discrepancies across languages. Editors in languages that have only imprecise matches as sitelinks will be likely to add unsuitable content to Wikidata based on their fuzzy understanding of the item's topic. I don't think that there is any way to address Wikidata's fundamental need for maximally precise grounding and at the same time to use sitelinks as a kind of document annotation mechanism to describe the topics of Wikipedia articles. Wikidata is fundamentally not a document annotation database to describe the current content of a particular Wikipedia language edition. This would be more like the envisioned future Wikimedia Commons, where media files can be described in terms of Wikidata items. Both applications have the Bonnie-and-Clyde problem, but they are different in many other aspects. --Markus Krötzsch (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Making mass changes

I've being doing some clean-up of data on listed buildings and scheduled monuments in the UK in preparation for Wikipedia Loves Monuments UK 2017. The query I've been using identifies buildings whose coordinates are not in the named administrative area. For example, 1, Bridge Street (Q26578136) has the property located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) set to Richmond (Q7330735) (a place in South Yorkshire, England), when it should be Richmond (Q1009324) (a town in North Yorkshire, England).

It's easy enough to make the change in one item using the standard user interface. However, I've found 300+ items that require exactly the same change to the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) property. Are there any tools/bots/scripts around that would make this sort of repetitive change easier and quicker?

If not, does anyone fancy creating a tool that can manage this sort of change with a batch command file or a bot running in the background? Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you are looking for Petscan. If you query your items with the SPARQL option and log on to Widar, you'll see an input form to batch-edit the items returned by the query. You can add and/or remove claims in a single run. --MisterSynergy (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you - that looks promising - I'll give it a go. Robevans123 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Robevans123: I don't know to what extent you may already have met them, but if you have the means to identify large numbers of edits you want to make, two invaluable tools are QuickStatements and QuickStatements 2. Both of these can rapidly create large numbers of statements, as specified from a (spreadsheet-style) set of tab-separated lines. The original QS has the better documentation page; but QS2 has much better previewing of what it's about to do, and also adds the ability to remove statements.
From what you already have, it should easy to create such a set of statements for QS2 to remove, interleaved with a corrected set for QS2 to add.
One thing to note is that the statements are re-created from scratch, so you should look out for any existing references or additional qualifier clauses, as you will need to explicitly include these in the directives for the new statements for QS2 to make.
On a different note, I'm quite excited to see you working on this data. Previously quite a lot of the located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements have localised items to only quite a crude level (eg county level, or perhaps district level). But I believe the data generally identifies LBs and scheduled monuments to a parish level. Our coverage of civil parishes in England is now to in the 90%s (or was, the last time I looked, a few months ago). So, if you're cleaning up this data, has it been possible to reflect that potential for better localisation, typically to CP level ? Jheald (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: Yes - I've used the original QuickStatements - but had discounted that as only been good to add statements. I had a look at QS2, but didn't realise you can use it to delete statements, and couldn't even work out how to enter statements - where do you enter the commands?! Is the syntax the same? Very frustrated!
Definitely want to refine the listed building/scheduled monument data. Quite a few don't have any located in the administrative territorial entity (P131) statements, and the descriptions leave a lot to be desired. I think I've fixed most of the ones that had England as the admin area... Definitely best to get down to the civil parish level where the data is available.
After fixing a couple of thousand buildings/monuments with incorrect parishes, I've found the coverage of parishes for England looks pretty thorough, and I think most, if not all, listed buildings/monuments are also covered to some extent. Need to do some work on the Welsh data to catch up in both areas! Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Robevans123: Syntax for QS2 is just the same. Click on the "Import commands" tab at the top, then the "Version 1 format" button that appears. An input window will appear, into which you can paste a file of QS1 commands. Starting a line with '-' causes the statement to be removed, rather than added.
@Jheald: Thank you! Works very well - when you get used to the slightly odd interface. Very powerful, and a great time saver. Robevans123 (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I had quite a crack at English CPs earlier this year. But (from when I last looked) there were still about 300 GSS codes not yet identified to a Wikidata item, and about 300 Wikidata items not matchable to GSS codes. Sadly those two sets don't appear to match. Some relevant queries at User:Jheald/todo/UK#Civil_parishes. In Wales it's communities rather than CPs, may not be so far ahead. Jheald (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata items for conference

Conferences like Wikimania (Q483279) are yearly events. What is the best way to describe such periodic conferences? Do we create new items for every year like Wikimania 2014 (Q14506843) or Wikimania 2016 (Q19291990)? Or do we create only one item and make use of some properties? If latter is the best option, which property (or properties) can be used? Jsamwrites (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Creating items for every year makes a lot of sense. ChristianKl (talk) 08:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd create one item for each year, which simplifies things like adding keynote speakers, locations, themes, attendance numbers, etc. which will be different for each iteration. It also allows building timelines and other histories of the events. This is the approach with use with sports competitions, fashion weeks, annual awards, and many other similary recurring concepts. - PKM (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

not neccessarily the Bonnie and Clyde problem

Many Wikipedia pages contain information about multiple things. There is the well-known page about Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnie_and_Clyde. There are also more mundane pages in English Wikipedia are the main English Wikipedia pages about multiple things, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_(dishware), which has information about disposable plates, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutlery, which has a named section on disposable cutlery, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_box, which has a named section on what is commonly called kitty litter.

Pages on other sister sites are also contain information about multiple things. For example, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tree has definitions of 14 different things that are different meanings for the word "tree". Each of these are potential Wikidata items, with at least tree (Q10884), tree (Q223655), shoe tree (Q1323327), and tree (Q272735) currently existing.

The problem is that site links in Wikidata are one-to-one per sister project and only to entire pages. So it is not currently possible for any of the Wikidata items related to tree to link to link to the appropriate definition in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tree. Nor is it even possible for them all to link to the entire Wiktionary page. So it is not always possible to have a site link from a Wikidata item to the place in a sister project where the item is best described or even to the page in the sister project that contains this place.

Not having such direct links makes Wikidata less useful than it should be. When editing Wikidata items, it can be difficult to find information about the item in Wikipedia and other sister projects. When editing pages in sister projects, it can be difficult to find the corresponding Wikidata item.

I suggest that the conditions on site links be loosened so that a site link URL can have a fragment identifier. This will allow Wikidata items to link to portions of pages in sister projects. It would be best if the fragment identifiers existed as anchors in the sister project pages, but that need not be a hard requirement. So a site link for a Wikidata item on kitty litter could be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litter_box#Types_of_litter_box_filler, a site link for a Wikidata item on disposable cutlery could be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutlery#Disposable_cutlery, and a site link for disposable plates could be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_(dishware)#Disposable_plate. Similarly each of the tree-related items in Wikidate could have links using https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tree.

There are costs associated with this change. Existing code for displaying site links may need to be modified. Code to validate site links may need to be modified. Processes to keep site links in sync with changes in sister projects may need to modified. However, I feel that these costs are acceptable to more closely link Wikidata to sister Wikimedia projects.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peter F. Patel-Schneider: on wiktionary, are you aware of the lexicographical project going on right now? See Wikidata talk:Wiktionary for info and links, there is a demo system up right now. As I understand it, Wiktionary terms should NOT be linked via sitelinks to wikidata items; rather they will have their own wikidata items with an 'L' prefix, and their meanings (senses) will have statements that may link them to regular wikidata 'Q'-prefix items. This resolves I think much of your concern here. I do like the fragment-linking proposal - we have had a Request for Proposals up for several months now on support for the redirect mechanism, but the fragment-link mechanism is I think even more elegant (and has been suggested by others there). However, the one huge missing ingredient here is any commentary from the development team on this. I know they've been busy with the Wiktionary project, but I hope we will hear something on which if any of these proposals is actually practical to implement. In general at least from this RFC we seem to have roughly 2:1 community support for doing something here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What would be the impact on the amount of statements that are add being added based on infoboxes or categories at Wikipedia?
    --- Jura 19:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Many pages, including things like Berlin Hauptbahnhof (Q1097) and .NET Framework (Q5289), are linked directly to Wikidata (Q2013), apparently through references on certain properties that say they are "imported from Wikidata". Is this legit? Should a Wikidata item be allowed to cite Wikidata as a source? - dcljr (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

These references should be replaced using inferred from (P3452). I have got an approval for my bot to clean up this kind of sourcing, I could also take a look at those. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There are ~22.227 claims with such references. Plus ~178.736 which use Q20651139 as value instead of Wikidata (Q2013), and maybe others. Ping @Pasleim: as maintainer of DeltaBot as well, which seems to add plenty of those references with P143.
In general it is okay to use “internal” references to Wikimedia projects at Wikidata. Data users need to evaluate sources individually and decide whether they consider the claim as “sourced” in their environment. Many Wikipedia templates can already do this more or less automatically to my knowledge. Help:Sources describes what kind of sources should be expected. —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Help:Sources/Items not needing sources is relevant here: I believe the Wikidata-sourced properties on several of the pages I was talking about included topic's main category (P910). - dcljr (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Help needed Single value violation cleaning in an intelligent way

I loaded P4159 and have some problems e.g.

  • Q7726#P4159 has
    • Joseph Bonaparte (1)
    • Joseph_Bonaparte_(1)
Best is If the first one (without _) is deleted. See error list 393 errors
Thanks - Salgo60 (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
no it is not best to have the underscores, why would you think so? If you want someone to do a cleanup with a bot, then you should make an application at Wikidata:Bot requests  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. My feeling is that <space> in an URL is adding more troubles than _ Plus better if we have it consistent.... - Salgo60 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Beta feature: advanced filters and more options for Watchlists, starting September 5

Hello!

Sorry to write in English. Please inform your community in your language about this change!

As you may already know, the Global Collaboration team has created a Beta feature. This feature is on your wiki since few months: "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽". You can activate it in your Beta preferences.

What is this feature again?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked. It adds new features that ease vandalism tracking and support of newcomers:

  • Filtering - filter recent changes with easy-to-use and powerful filters combinations, including filtering by namespace or tagged edits.
  • Highlighting - add a colored background to the different changes you are monitoring. It helps quick identification of changes that matter to you.
  • Bookmarking to keep your favorite configurations of filters ready to be used.
  • Quality and Intent Filters - those filters use ORES predictions. They identify real vandalism or good faith intent contributions that need help.

You can know more about this project by visiting the quick tour help page.

What's new?

On September 5, the Beta feature will have a new option. Watchlists will have all new features available on Recent Changes Beta now.

If you have already activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽", you have no action to take. If you haven't activated the Beta feature "⧼eri-rcfilters-beta-label⧽" and you want to try the filters on Watchlists, please go to your Beta preferences on September 6. It will not be possible to try the filters only on Recent Changes or only on Watchlist.

Please also note that later in September, some changes will happen on Recent Changes. We will release some features at the moment available in Beta as default features. This will impact all users, but we will provide an option to opt-out. I'll recontact you with a more precise schedule and all the details very soon.

You can ping me if you have questions.

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Ration of Homo sapiens (Q15978631)

My edits were reverted twice by @Succu: so I like to know what constitutes ration of Humans.

Russian "ru:Крахмал#Пищевое значение" is quite explicit about "most important carbohydrate (Q11358) in ration of Homo sapiens (Q15978631)"

Why this doesn't make any sense, @Succu:? d1g (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: you can explain your concerns here.
Do you have something against Nathaniel or what he said? d1g (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
For a start the removed statements. --Succu (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look at main food source (P1034). starch (Q41534) fails the scope. --Succu (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I said it at talk page, some plants consume or digest elements not taxons.
If one is competent to claim about individual requeried elements and their rate for each taxa, they should do this.
Food can be synthesized. d1g (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You asked: should we use this for required elements in soil? Nobody answered till now. --Succu (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
And this change. --Succu (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu: what is incorrect or poorly sourced?
Do you object usage of chemical objects in main food source (P1034)?
human nutrition (Q2602563) is quite clear about importance of carbohydrate (Q11358) in ration of Homo sapiens (Q15978631)" d1g (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: you seem to make arbitrary comments today, how about to answer

  1. what constitutes H.S. ration?
  2. what is the point of main food source (P1034) if it is removed even from humans?

@Succu: I can reason what is eaten by humans based on national agricultural production reports. "meat" is far from leading point. Nathaniel is more right than wrong at least in several ways. Do you have to add to "really?!" and "nonsens"? d1g (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith:
It seems that every domestic animal should be 5-10 times bigger before we should consider them major portion of ration.
United States Total Grains 2015/16 Total Supply : 506.00 Million Metric Tons
United States Total Red Meat & Poultry 2016 Total Supply : 104,137 Million Pounds (104137/2204=47)
https://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/
Why @Succu: is silent? If humans are mostly meat consumers I would expect sources from him.
Remember that usage of Rice is abundant in China and Asia in general. d1g (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I never stated this! --Succu (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
We all should guess what you mean by nonsens when you remove "vegetables" from H.S.
In Wikidata vegetable (Q11004) means all crops.
US production is dominated by crops.
@Succu: nobody should cite national economic reports to make "sense"
Consider how you can improve H.S. item. d1g (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Now D1gggg is (mis)using source of energy (P618) for the same purpose. --Succu (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Enough accusations @Succu:.
Chemical elements were always used in P618. d1g (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but your statements make no sense to me. E.g. vitamin (Q34956) is not a kind of energy source. --Succu (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia project closed: How to do?

Have we already discussed how to handle closed Wikimedia projects? For example https://mo.wikipedia.org. We must keep sitelink and/or label and/or description? If we keep them, is possible highlight sitelink for blocked wiki project? --ValterVB (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems to have been read-only long before Wikidata started (2006?). Officially, it's closed since 2010, but not deleted.
Supposedly, one could still add sitelinks. https://mo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UnconnectedPages seems inactive though. Currently we have some 337 sitelinks. Obviously, one couldn't really add more pages than those that exist. If the site gets deleted, all sitelinks would probably go as well.
There aren't much more labels (some 3296) either.
--- Jura 06:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Made a comment on Property talk:P1456 some time ago

but did not get notice. So let me repeat it here again:

using https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Monuments_database as a source / Quelle might be convenient, but is a wikiverse self-reference and should be avoided. Instead, the real local, country dependent, monument repositories should be used instead. Otherwise this will hide the real origin of data. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I responded there.
--- Jura 06:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata:Identifier

I created two lists based on unique identifier (Q6545185)

and edited several items that had a claim instanceOf, but the items are instances of ID systems, not instances of IDs. There are some items about IDs (instanceOf UID). Also several National Identity Card claimed to be instanceOf UID, but should be classes and should not have regex format attached because they are ID cards not strings. Whether individual strings, e.g. AFG (Q12626453) are instanceOf UID is out of my interest, my main concern was, that items like ISBN are subclassOf UID and not instanceOf UID.

A further observation, there are several lists for properties

Would it be possible that a bot creates main namespace items for each "external-id"-property? That would grow Wikidata:List of classes of identifiers.

Last but not least, there is a bug with Listeria, if one wants to list Wikidata property (P1687) then the Q-item with the same number as the P-item is shown, e.g. for Q19832913 it shows as Wikidata property (P1687) New Hampshire (Q759) instead of Alberta Register of Historic Places ID (P759). 78.55.161.157 03:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • So what's the point to create these lists of identifiers? What's the point to create ID items?
  • We need to talk about Wikidata:Identifier. I see a need for a page with that title, but in its current condition it should better be deleted.
  • Listeria is a tool by User:Magnus Manske. There is a public repository where you can file bug reports if you think something is broken. Magnus is busy, however, so sometimes it takes a while until he shows a reaction.
—MisterSynergy (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
MisterSynergy "So what's the point to create these lists of identifiers?" - There is no "the point", but there are purposes of the lists,
  1. sort out the current mis-classifications of identifiers in Wikidata (e.g. subclassOf vs instanceOf)
  2. track inconsistent property usage, e.g. country (P17) vs applies to jurisdiction (P1001), issued by (P2378) vs operator (P137)
  3. demonstrate what information is already stored in Wikidata main namespace - or how much is missing, when comparing with the 1945 properties "external-id"
"What's the point to create ID items?" - There is no "the point", but there are several purposes,
  1. connect Wikipedia articles, like at International Standard Name Identifier (Q423048)
  2. to correctly link from a property (e.g. ISNI (P213)) using Wikidata item of this property (P1629) to the main name space - if there is no ID item, one cannot link correctly, and currently P213 stores a lot of false claims
  3. to make the data that Wikidata already stores in properties available for SPARQL retrieval via the item namespace
"We need to talk about Wikidata:Identifier" - that page has a talk page, use it! "I see a need for a page with that title" - Good, it is there, why not say "Thanks" to the creator? "but in its current condition it should better be deleted." - Explain why, especially using WD policies and considering that you just said "I see a need for a page with that title" - Why delete instead of ammend? What do you have mind to be there? 77.179.188.123 12:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not understand what you are doing or planning to do, and this is reflected by your contributions, your comments on this page, and by your new pages in Wikidata namespace as well. My best assumption is that you are a pretty inexperienced user who is not used to the habits here and not aware of the consequences of their own activity. Your apparent reluctance to create and use an account does not permit you to develop any track record. I’d like to ask you to slow down a lot, and discuss your plans before you change anything on a large scale on property or item pages. Beginners seldom manage to work with an acceptably low error rate if they immediately try to be a major player.
The identifier page does not contain anything that appears useful, thus a deletion would probably be the best for a fresh start by experts. Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. "Frankly, I do not understand what you are doing" - That is your limitation! Try to fix!
  2. "Beginners" - I am not a beginner, I work with identifiers for more than a decade and as demonstrated have some knowledge about P31/P279 that registered user ArthurPSmith does not have
  3. "seldom manage to work with an acceptably low error rate" - show the errors, the error rate and say what is "acceptably low" to you
  4. "if they immediately try to be a major player." - I don't try to be a major player - maybe I am, but I don't try to. 77.179.36.254 14:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

This IP user seems to have made a large number of changes to P31/P279 statements regarding our unique identifiers, including some modifications of properties. I don't believe they make sense, and don't understand why an unidentified (new?) user of this sort thinks they can override decisions on our subclass hierarchy made by many previous users here. I believe all their changes should be reverted as they don't make sense to me. unique identifier (Q6545185) has all along been a class whose instances are specific identifier systems, NOT the actual id's of objects within those systems - this can easily be seen from the "Examples" listing in the enwiki sitelink for Q6545185. Those "examples" are instances, not subclasses, of "unique identifier", and I think that's been clear from the way those relationships have generally been applied within wikidata. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith - "I don't believe they make sense" - then show, using reasoning, and not using attack on the user.
Semantics are broken and you should probably be blocked from editing P31/P279 until you can demonstrate your knowledge improved. BTW: "This IP user seems to have made a large number of changes to P31/P279 statements regarding our unique identifiers" - Do you really play OWN here? Do you regard the identifiers to belong to you and your friends? Why do you have ID lists in user space: User:ArthurPSmith/Identifiers. Why not in a project? You want to assert some kind of control? 77.179.36.254 13:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
did you just edit my comment and your response here? Here's what I wrote to respond to you before your edit interfered: You are confused about the meaning of unique identifier (Q6545185). Given where wikidata is, there was naturally some confusion here as well (the country codes case is a good example). Nevertheless, thinking that something that is an instance of "unique identifier" is the actual code for identifying a specific entity is completely wrongheaded. What could "uniqueness" possibly mean if we are talking about a single entity? It is inherently nonsensical. If you look at en:Unique identifier (and its reference en:Identifier you will see that all the examples listed (*instances*) are things like ISBN, ISSN, ISNI, ORCID, etc, which are systems for uniquely identifying entities with specific codes. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (Q1140221) should have been instance of (P31) country code (Q906278), not a subclass. As to my expertise on the issue of class relationships, perhaps some others here could note the work I've done on this in the past. Just as a sample, I did some considerable editing of Help:BMP and wrote a number of the pages under Wikidata:WikiProject Ontology. Whereas, given your continued instance on using an IP address, it's not clear what background you have at all. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
as to what was going on at User:ArthurPSmith/Identifiers - this was at an early point in the external-id conversion project, to decide which string properties qualified as legitimate unique identifiers that would be useful as external id's. See Wikidata:Identifier migration for the actual main work on this, and thanks to Lydia and the developers for making the migrations happen. My page was just intended as a temporary reference point on what was going on with various identifiers. There are lots of similar user pages with occasionally gathered stats of this sort. I'm leaving this one up just for historical purposes. At least it does demonstrate that I've been involved with identifiers on wikidata for some time now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith If I changed any of your edits, then it must have been in an edit conflict, without a notice for such a conflict seen here. Please stop your personal attacks "You are confused about the meaning of unique identifier (Q6545185)" - I can claim the same about you. That does not lead us anywhere. Can you please say how you would like the claims to be, including for individual code elements like 10048 (Q4546087), Q12656548, AFG (Q12626453). Is "AFG" a UID? If not, what is it? I didn't change all IDs that are now subclassOf UID, there were already some, which was the reason I started working on it. SPARQL failed to show all when using P31 and failed when using P279. It should be consistent.
"If you look at en:Unique identifier (and its reference en:Identifier you will see that all the examples listed (*instances*) are things like ISBN, ISSN, ISNI, ORCID, etc, which are systems for uniquely identifying entities with specific codes." - Exactly, they are systems, maybe instances of systems. But they are classes of UIDs. en:Identifier does not claim they are instances. 77.180.179.245 17:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
AFG (Q12626453) is an instance of international vehicle registration code (Q154015) that in turn should be an instance of country code, which is a subclass of unique identifier (Q6545185). Class relationships can be hard to think about with respect to any abstract concept, but I think here it is relatively clear. The postal code case is interesting however - many things have the same postal code, and the code within a given country is not a "unique identifier" of anything without also specifying the country. I don't think it belongs under "unique identifier" at all, that is, all that a zip code (for example) identifies is the area identified by the zip code, which is somewhat tautological - and which may also change over time. So I think 10048 (Q4546087) can be instance of (P31) ZIP code (Q136208), sure, but what relationships ZIP code (Q136208) should have otherwise are not clear to me - in the end it should be an instance of identifier, but not necessarily of unique identifier (Q6545185). ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
ArthurPSmith, thanks for your reply. (US) ZIP code is a UID to identify a (US) ZIP code area (geographic region, but the extension can change). An ISO country code identifies a country (legal entity) which claims to have certain rights over a geographic region. There are different kinds of postal IDs in some countries, e.g. 01 identifies a Postleitregion, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:German_postcode_information.png), no idea if there is a name for the area where codes start with "0". There is always the thing that is identified and the identifier. There are IDs for physical objects (humans, cars, ...) and IDs for non-physical objects. "GB", "DE", "FR" are identifiers. Maybe they are instances or they are classes of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code (Q1140221). What you said "AFG (Q12626453) is an instance of international vehicle registration code (Q154015) that in turn should be an instance of country code" would mean that AFG (Q12626453) is not an instance of a country code, because that would only be inherited from international vehicle registration code (Q154015) if international vehicle registration code (Q154015) would be a subclass of country code. Then AFG (Q12626453) is not a UID. "GB", "DE", "FR" would not be UIDs. So there are these things:
  1. UID
  2. specific UID systems (e.g. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, ISO 639-3 language code)
  3. the codes of a system (DE, FR, GB; deu, eng, fra) : 1) subclass or instance of UID ("FR is a UID for the country named 'France'"), 2) subclass or instance of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code ("FR is a UID for the country named 'France'"), 3) "DE, FR, GB are UIDs, country codes, 2-letter country codes, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes"
  4. some classes with no specific UIDs, e.g. "country code", or "article identifier", or "language identifier"
On a page about "FR" it should be sufficient to state the relation to "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code" and then to inherit all the rest that is attached via subclassOf, so that "FR" would be a UID, ID, 2-letter string. If one adds "UID system", e.g. "ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code is an instance of a UID system", then much is solved. "country code" and "2-letter country code" would not be an "instance of a UID system" but just some classes to group the systems. I would even go one step further and say that "FR" just is a class, and when I write it down on a paper then it is instance of the country code 'FR'. To have items about instances of UIDs (like on my paper), should be rare in Wikidata. 77.180.179.245 19:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

County letter (Q10571932)

User:Innocent bystander claimed [13] that County letter (Q10571932) is an instance of country code (Q906278). The description says "alphabetic or numeric geographical codes that represent countries and dependent areas". But County letter (Q10571932) has nothing to do with identifying a country or dependent area. But it is only meant to identify members of a set of country subdivisions, namely county of Sweden (Q200547).

And if it is an instanceOf UID, then what are "AB", "C", "D"? InstanceOf an instanceOf UID? Semantics broken. 77.180.179.245 18:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

First user that made that claim was User:JakobVoss (Jakob Voss (Q15303972) - all the education, the degrees and the work at VGZ didn't prevent that claim from being made by him). But why did User:Innocent bystander re-insert the claim? 77.180.179.245 18:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "dependent areas". If a "subdivision of Sweden" is such "dependent area", the claim is right. Otherwise County letter (Q10571932) and country code (Q906278) only share a common superclass. -- JakobVoss (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
JakobVoss, wouldn't Wikidata follow what reliable sources define a "dependent area" to be, en lieu of me doing so? For a start: en:Dependent territory. If one just goes by the words "dependent" and "area" then any area may qualify because any depends on something. And "country code" would be called "area code". But there is a reason why "country" is inside the term. Re "Otherwise County letter (Q10571932) and country code (Q906278) only share a common superclass" - that is not correct. First, all things share a common superclass, here it is: entity (Q35120). Second, the two do not "only share a common superclass", but share several. 92.227.218.95 00:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
From Swedish article it says for car plates.
Not relevant to ATE or countries. d1g (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g, there are different ways to define ATE, you may look at it in Soviet/Russian context. A Country could also be a ATE - it is an entity, it is defined for administration, and it has to do with territory, thus adminsitrative territorial entity. European Union, Russia, Central European Time Zone, Kaliningrad Region, Moscow City (the federal subject), could all be ATEs. Country is just one ATE class. For some ATE it is debated if they are countries, e.g. Kosovo, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Nakhitshevan, Palestine. And then there are ATEs that are not countries, but sometimes seen as outside countries, that's what usually is meant by "dependent area" (American Samoa, Hong Kong, Macao, Gibraltar), the term that JakobVoss wanted to redefine. I see no reliable source for the edits by User:Innocent bystander and JakobVoss that define the counties of Sweden as "countries" or "dependent areas".
User:JakobVoss did not yet comment on 'And if it [Sweden county code] is an instanceOf UID, then what are "AB", "C", "D"?' 77.179.79.12 12:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
No problem, please assume good faith! I just created administrative territorial entity identifier (Q36205316) for special classes of unique identifier (Q6545185) with identify any kind of areas (countries, counties, etc.). -- JakobVoss (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Postal code

ZIP code

    • How can 10048 (Q4546087) be P31 ZIP code (Q136208) and therefore P31 unique identifier (Q6545185)
    • P31 is not a transitive property, "and therefore" is wrong.
    • Q4546087 can have P279 with value of "sequence of characters" or similar. d1g (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g ZIP code (Q136208) subclass of unique identifier (Q6545185) and therefore transitive and therefore the therefore was correct. 77.179.79.12 13:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
unique identifier has values, 10048 (Q4546087) has no values/instances and not identifier at all, but a ZIP code
Undo your changes to Q136208! d1g (talk) 13:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g, of course ZIP codes have instances. Have you never seen Soviet/Russian postal codes printed on letters? 77.179.79.12 14:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, we had such oversight for a long time. d1g (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mbch331: US ZIP codes are now human readable data and no longer strings, or UIDs, thanks to D1gggg's edit. 77.179.79.12 14:12, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Eircode

Eircode (Q6070781) now human readable data and no longer string, or UID, thanks to User:D1gggg's [14] 77.179.79.12 14:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Youtube channel ID

@ArthurPSmith: some thoughts on YouTube channel ID (Q35907496):
Instances of Q35907496 are unlikely to be modeled as separate items.
It must be P31 "identifier" (YouTube has only one version of channel identifiers)
It could be P279 "sequence of letters"
Changes by @77.180.179.245: don't capture this. d1g (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Each single channel id should be instance of (P31)YouTube channel ID (Q35907496), even though we will never have an item about a specific channel id (we might have an item about a channel, but not about the id). So YouTube channel ID (Q35907496)subclass of (P279)identifier. And subclass of (P279)sequence of letters is totally wrong as it's not just letters, also numbers and some special characters. Mbch331 (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Individual identifiers aren't modeled using items.
Why one need to create item "UCcOkA2Xmk1valTOWSyKyp4g"? What it should state?..
is totally wrong as it's not just letters, also numbers and some special characters
I wasn't in mood to type every trivial detail. d1g (talk) 06:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course there won't be an item for an individual channel id, but that still doesn't make that YouTube channel ID (Q35907496)instance of (P31)identifier true. It's about concepts. Not because something is the lowest level possible on Wikidata, it automatically requires a P31 statement. Sometimes the lowest level only needs a P279 statement. Mbch331 (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your comments: "Of course there won't be an item for an individual channel id" is opposite "Each single channel id should be instance of (P31)YouTube channel ID (Q35907496)"
Your statements seem nothing to do with what i said as for now... d1g (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g, why is that opposite? Only because there are no items about YT channel IDs does not mean the YT channel IDs are not IDs. 77.179.79.12 13:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
P31 URL
P31 youtubechannelID
Who need to make such statements? d1g (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g, "Who need to make such statements?" - what do you mean? 77.179.79.12 14:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

List of issues with identifiers

Wikidata:List of classes of unique identifiers

{ {Wikidata list
|sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE {  ?item wdt:P279* wd:Q6545185 } 
|columns=item,label,P279,P31,P17,P1001,P2378,P137,P1793,P1630,description,P1687
|sort=label
|summary=itemnumber
} }

returns 251 items. Included are several specific code elements from ISO 639-3, e.g. "aze". How can IDs be separated from ID systems? Should the systems get an additional P31? 77.179.36.254 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Shall the inconsistencies in the usage of subclass of (P279) VS instance of (P31), country (P17) VS applies to jurisdiction (P1001), issued by (P2378) VS operator (P137), and format as a regular expression (P1793) be removed?

ISO 639-1 code (P218) ISO 639-3 code (P220) should be used at Arabic (Q13955)
I don't know if we should do anything about items like Q12656547 d1g (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g 1) the items exist because there are connected pages in Wikipedia. 2) languoids are not physical objects, they are defined by different people at different ppoints in time differently. How many things in a language have to be change to constitute a new language? ISO came around and defined some languoids, 'ara' is macrolanguage consisting of several individual languages. Other languoid ID systems may not have something like 'ara'. Wikidata should only state what is stated in reliable sources. Maybe the item for 'ara' could be redefined as "the languoid identified by ISO 639 'ara'". So, the 'ara'-item would not be instanceOf/subclassOf UID, but subclassOf ISO 639 defined languoid. d1g, User:ArthurPSmith, what do you think? 77.179.79.12 13:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 Strong oppose insane suggestions to create items for "tt0120338" "tt0088846" and use P31/P279 below. d1g (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
d1g where was it suggested to create items for "tt0120338" "tt0088846"? The item identified by tt0120338 exists: "Titanic (Q44578)", so does exists for "tt0088846" the item Brazil (Q25057). 85.179.160.30 16:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

human-readable data (Q28777989) OR machine-readable data (Q6723621) on UID items

@Innocent bystander, GerardM, Mbch331, JakobVoss, ArthurPSmith: User:D1gggg now inserts randomly(?) subclassOf human-readable data (Q28777989) OR subclassOf machine-readable data (Q6723621) on UID items [15]. Maybe the statements are correct, but wouldn't it make more sense to classify all the UIDs with something more specific like unique identifier (Q6545185) or a subclass of the latter? human-readable data OR machine-readable data is very unspecific. 77.179.55.131 14:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ogoorcs: User:D1gggg turned your specific classification as "Internet Movie Database title ID" subclassOf "UID" into only "Internet Movie Database title ID" subclassOf "string" [16] . Yes, a IMDB title ID is a string, but a specific type of string, namely a UID. Waht do you think? 78.51.208.125 15:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Internet Movie Database title ID (Q28777282) is rather an instance of unique identifier (Q6545185) (or some of its subclasses). Individual parts of Internet Movie Database title ID (Q28777282) are strings but the whole is an identifier system. In most cases it makes no sense to make statements about individual identifiers, at least before lexical label items are supported in Wikidata. -- JakobVoss (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment we shouldn't put too much effort to explain "unique identifier" is a system of values.
They were given explanation multiple times above, but they continue to drag everyone in community rather than accounting what what was suggested. d1g (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
JakobVoss - "Internet Movie Database title ID (Q28777282) is rather an instance of unique identifier (Q6545185)" - how that? "tt0120338" and "tt0088846" are Internet Movie Database title ID (Q28777282), there are many of these, that belong to the class IMDB id, subclass of creative work ID, subclass of ID. "DE" is a UID for a country, namely a country code. "FR", "GB" too. What is the class they belong to? ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code, subclass of country code, subclass of UID. 85.179.160.30 13:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@78.51.208.125: I think it is correct to say that ImDB title IDs are instances of "UID"s and of course of strings. I don't see conflicts in these statements. To me, best choice is "subclass of" "UID" -> qualifier: "consists of" "string".--Ogoorcs (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ogoorcs: anyone with 1 day of experience with databases wouldn't define unique identifiers as strings: "a specific type of string, namely a UID" - such statement show all profanity
unique identifiers aren't about strings but
  1. about uniqueness of values
  2. about identification system associated with values (ara is meaningless without coding system)
d1g (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: Follow me here. Instances of IMDb Title ID (i.e. an IMDb Title ID as 'tt0088846', since this string is a member of IMDb Title ID class) are instances of strings ('tt0088846' is an alphanumeric string) and of course they are instances of UIDs (because 'tt0088846' identify one and only one movie), so correct statements for IMDb Title IDs are subclass of: string and subclass of: UID as per "subclass of" property definition. Beware, I'm not saying we should give 'tt0088846' an entry on its own! All I've written was supposed to push those statements, no others. --Ogoorcs (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Any individual identifier such as "ara" is meaningless without a coding system. Who wrote this and what does it mean?
Individual identifiers such as country code "DE" or IMDb "tt0120338" should not be stored as Wikidata items but used as values with the corresponding Wikidata properties. Exceptions should be treated as exceptions, instead of argument to make them the norm. -- JakobVoss (talk) 09:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: I have not said that UIDs are strings, but that IMDb title IDs are and it is good to specify it because many things can be UIDs at this world. Please, read better, stay calm and don't take for granted others' knowledge. --Ogoorcs (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@User:Ogoorcs: you said "I think it is correct to say that ImDB title IDs are instances of "UID"s and of course of strings. I don't see conflicts in these statements".
Conflict is quite oblivious.
tt0088846 is not a unique identifier them-self, but a value of unique identifier (IMDB).
Values of UID could be (and often are) random.
The only application of tt0088846-as-instances-of-IMDB is OCR and even for this one could select all values of IMDb ID (P345). d1g (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: I'm sorry, this uselessly overly complicated and messy way of exchanging messages has again proven horrible and difficult to follow. It appears I've written under the wrong message, since it seems to me that you think I'm arguing to what JakobVoss said. I think it is better to continue our discussion above. --Ogoorcs (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Identifier classification tree

data 1

213.39.164.36 22:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup and summary

Hi. In preparation of Wikidata:WikidataCon 2017/Submissions/State of identifiers in Wikidata I have cleaned up the class hierarchy of unique identifier (Q6545185). We now have 50 types and subtypes of identifier systems, such as geocode (Q36214810), publication identifier (Q36646373), language identifier (Q2092812), and Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637). The latter subsumes 20 types alone. Below this multihierarchical classification there are 2377 instances in total, e.g. the ISO 639-2 (Q721667), Postal codes in Japan (Q7234027), digital object identifier (Q25670), and many more. I'd keep Wikidata:Identifiers to further summarize my findings but I can also do it at another place. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The subclasses can be listed with this tool.
  • Regarding Wikidata:Identifiers: I’ll retract my deletion request immediately if you offer to work on this page. The current content is not very useful to my experience, but there is a lot to say about identifiers and it would be valuable to sum that up in a place like that. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Making Wikidata fit as a linking hub for knowledege organization systems

Wikidata covers more and more aspects of human knowledge. In certain domains or subject fields, well established knowledge organization system (Q6423319) (such as thesauri, classification schemes, taxonomies, or subject heading systems) exist, and organize knowledge by defining concepts and optionally their mutual hierarchical or associative relationships. Connecting these systems, originating mostly from the library and information science world, to Wikidata - via either external identifier (Q21754218) properties or via exact match (P2888) - is a widely used and encouraged practice.

For these knowledge organization systems (KOS), Wikidata already works as a linking hub, because it connects concepts defined in one KOS via the according Wikidata property to all other concepts connected to the same Wikidata item via other external id properties. However: While mapping external entities is straightforward for people, it gets increasingly difficult for organizations, locations, or abstract concepts. Sometimes the concepts only partly overlap, sometimes there are slight differences in meaning, sometimes there is only an associative relation (e.g. between an activity and the tool used in that activity). Currently, such kinds of matches cannot be coverd cleanly. This suggestion aims at changing this, making Wikidata fit as an universal linking hub for KOS.

W3C's Simple Knowledge Organization System (Q2288360) (SKOS) standard defines and explains five mapping relations for linking to external concepts:

  • exactMatch indicates that two concepts have equivalent meaning, and the link can be exploited across a wide range of applications and schemes. The link is meant to be transitive (A = B and B = C means A = C)
  • closeMatch indicates that two concepts are sufficiently similar that they can be used interchangeably in many applications. This link is not meant to be transitive.
  • narrowMatch indicates that one concept is narrower than the other (for the representation of hierarchical links). The link is not meant to be transitive.
  • broadMatch indicates that one concept is broader than the other (inverse of narrower). The link is not meant to be transitive.
  • relatedMatch indicates a non-hierarchical assoziative relationship between two concepts. The link is not meant to be transitive.

I here suggest to implement these relations in Wikidata as follows:

  1. Create four items "close match", "broad match", "narrow match", "related match", with definitions according to SKOS.
  2. Create a new property "mapping relation type" (instance-of Wikidata qualifier (Q15720608)) for use as an optional qualifier for properties of type external identifier, with values constrained to "close match", "broad match", "narrow match" or "related match". An exact match would be implied by a missing "mapping relation type" qualifier.
  3. Create according constraints, in particular constraints to be used instead of "single value" and "unique value", taking into account that 1:1 relationships between an item and a concept identified by an external identifier may be complemented or replaced by multiple qualified mappings (n:m). The use of such constraints in the definition of the external id properties could indicate if they are intended to be used with different mapping relation types.

That implementation could work as an extension of the already well established mechanisms. By "exact match implied in absence of a 'mapping relation type' qualifier", it would leave all existing external identifier relations undisturbed, yet would allow adding more precise mappings where appropriate.

As an important point in practice, Mix'n'match or equivalent tools can be applied for creating links to external vocabularies and catalogs without change. Once the external id property value has been added to the matching Wikidata item, it can immediately be qualified more precisely with a mapping relation type.

As a point of caution, queries would have to be aware of qualifiers to external id properties, actually meaning "this is not an exact match". However, that would not apply to the large group of existing properties for persons or other entities where only exact 1:1 relationships exist.

What do you think of this proposal? - Jneubert (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Authority control has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead., @JakobVoss, Jdeillon:

This sounds reasonable to me. How about creating a property proposal? I think that's a better place to have this discussion. ChristianKl (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I mostly support this. However, the SKOS relations (other than "exact") are somewhat vaguely defined: it's not clear what are the boundaries of "close", and "broad" (and conversely "narrow") can refer to a subclass relation, an instance-class relation, or a part-whole relation (or possibly other types of "broadening"). "related" could refer to any sort of relationship. Therefore I think in general it is preferable that, if no wikidata item already exists which is an "exact match" to an external URI, a new item should be created that is an "exact match", and the more precise wikidata properties used to relate that new item to existing items. Using these SKOS non-exact relations should, in my view, be only a fallback when creation of new wikidata items is not practical for some reason. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jneubert: a qualifier seems useful because this applies to every property,  Support d1g (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#mapping_relation_type - please continue discussion there. Jneubert (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jura1: Would you mind moving your comment to Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#mapping_relation_type, in order to avoid splitting the discussion between two threads? Jneubert (talk) 12:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it's better to continue it here where it was started. People can then just reference it when they vote there.
--- Jura 15:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrative division information for China

There is a large SQL file of information on Chinese administrative divisions that was trending on GitHub recently, including names in Mandarin for disambiguation, (camel-cased) names in pinyin, postal codes, and coordinates for these places (not sure if GCJ-02 or WGS84). At present these are very poorly documented (especially the villages) on Wikidata, so I am wondering whether this aggregated information can be imported to Wikidata. Mahir256 (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Liangent, Hat600:.--GZWDer (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Also @Fantasticfears, Jimmy Xu: --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting. We actually handles data uploading in WMCN. But I also have doubt. To what extend this data is accurate? And how can we be sure? The source is claimed from GoV site. But it seems to me that I couldn't declare so in the process of importing.--Fantasticfears (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
But it's a legal copy of database? --ValterVB (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
From what I gathered translating the issues, the coordinates are taken from Baidu Maps and the divisions themselves are from 2016 (whereas Liangent's bot created the division items in 2013). Perhaps there is more that I missed in the history of that GitHub repository. Mahir256 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mahir256: The administrative division data was originally created as templates in zhwiki in mid-2012 (even before Wikidata is launched), and thus is up to date as of 2011.--GZWDer (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Open Libraries identifiers

Hoi, I intent to add multiple Open Library identifiers. This will aid the disambiguation of authors at Open Library. We will get an update with the new redirects once they are processed at Open Library.. Are there any comments arguing why this is not ok? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done this with other external identifiers where there were duplicates in the original source database. I have removed the redirected one after the id provider fixed the problem. This seems fine to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That seems fine to me too, but if the redirected identifiers are widely used by others, it might make sense to only deprecate the statements instead. − Pintoch (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems fine to me too. I also use this on VIAF cluster ID (P214) when multiple IDs where not merged on VIAF. Deprecating the removed or redirected IDs seems a better solution, so that users who have them will still be linked in the right item :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Redirection is a function of the local database. Wikidata is imho there to link to the other database. As we do not indicate if a given identifier is an identifier, there is no point in keeping them. When you have a link, why go to Wikidata? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
+1 to deprecating, rather than removing, withdrawn identifiers, We've been over this several times before. Removing such valid data is harmful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Please explain how it is "valid". Identifiers that are wrong are invalid. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I added Arthur's sample to Property:P648#P1855. I think it's good to have one that illustrates multiple identifiers.
--- Jura 06:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete property with many values

Hello. Is there an easy way to delete a property of an item that have many values (over 100)? I want to delete all values. Xaris333 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

PetScan is able to remove statements (+you can prepare syntax to remove 100 in a minute in your spreadsheet software).--Jklamo (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Merging a data page to a specific property of another data page

Is there any way to merge a data page (Q5718596) to a property (P41) of another data page (Q34600)? --Xeror (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Using flag (P163): Special:Diff/546495916. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
But now there are duplicated properties in Q34600, one is the flag image property (P41) and another is the flag image in Q5718596. What I wanted to do was to move the reference of Q5718596 to the property (P41) of Q34600.--Xeror (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Possibly using statement is subject of (P805) as qualifier. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

New Administrator Nomination

Hello, I opened a new administrator nomination. Thanks you --Alaa :)..! 16:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense imported from Geonames

Thanks to the bot filling the Cebuano Wikipedia (Q837615) with all the items in geonames, and the bot importing all the pages from ceb to here, we now have a lot of nonsense items here. Just my latest picks from looking around Thailand items - Q35440991 and Q35441002 claim to be about a stream in Thailand. But for both the coordinates are in Laos, and there nothing but jungle there, not even a rivulet to be seen in Google Earth. There is a small river with that name in Thailand however which I now added manually (Mae Hong Son River (Q35513098)). Another one - Khuan Khaeng (Q31686472) and Khuan Khaeng (Q31372043) seem to be two peaks of the same hill, in this case the duplication was already done by the GNS-UFI database from which geonames imported them. But the problem - due to the inaccurate coordinates the bot gave the hill an elevation of 94 m, but looking at Google Maps it seems to be about 330 m. To make it worse - the bot who imported that statement did not even add a imported from Wikimedia project (P143) reference, so it impossible to see how the bogus heights came here. I am sure this is only the tip of the iceberg, so I worry our database has been screwed up with bogus data now :-( Ahoerstemeier (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a dedicated project on svwiki: sv:Wikipediadiskussion:Projekt alla platser-städning to handle this. Users like Kitayama and Taxelson have made thousands of deletions to clean up the mess. It looks far worse for cebwiki, very little cleanup is done there, and the botrun has edited that project much longer. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If its already known that this bot creates so many nonsense articles, why do we still import them here before giving them at least a basic check for validity? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
At a minimum, articles that get deleted at svwiki could have their equivalent deleted from here and, if possible, from cebwiki as well.
--- Jura 16:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The deleted pages are easy to find, but many articles on svwiki are instead merged and redirected, without us noticing where and why. Sometimes the item could stay as fulfilling notability here. Other times, they should be deleted since we do not want items about glitches in the GeoNames database. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It is better to have deprecated value(s) to avoid re-entry of fake objects.
Question is how many of such items we could allow.
Geonames should remove items at their side, then we would remove external ids. d1g (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Geonames is kind of a Wiki as well - I was able to delete those two wrong river entries there. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ahoerstemeier: And in a wiki you can be reverted, as I have been, so watch out! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem mentioned here is really a disaster, eventually. I am losing hours every month trying to fix a tiny part of the damage this bot has created and keeps creating. It is almost impossible to work on mountains in Canada and Australia for instance, because of all the Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920) it has generated along internal borders – summits in two provinces, territories or States at a time have, for some reason, been created twice. And again this is a very specific part of the issue, that in fact keeps growing right now. I have noticed this week that hell has just come recently to American protected areas. I am currently merging hundreds of items on refuges because in cebuano it was so important for them to read machine-written stuff on migratory birds of Virginia and the like. Thank you if you can stop this for good. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a new P31 value for anything that hadn't been confirmed with other sources would be a solution. It can be set with preferred rank and avoids that people keep getting these items. Otherwise, it's indeed hard to avoid that these are re-created.
--- Jura 04:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
A mountain can have several summits and we can have one item for each, but GeoNames is not a good enough source for that kind of information. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

These items exist in ceb: and sv: and I guess they are created in other Wikipedias manually at different rates, as geographical article coverage is improve. So, I don't think we should delete them here. I think we need to set a guideline about how to maintenance all these Geonames items. We need a way to state in items which ones were reviewed and are OK and which ones are wrong (removing wrong statements or set them as "unknown value"). Some statistics pages about done/removed/todo status would help too (bot generated) to see the progress. There are different subclass of incorrect info (height, coordinates, place names, country, etc). All the applied corrections should be moved to Geonames, so their database is improved and we don't get again wrong data. Any needed changes in ceb: and sv: articles should be applied there too, and if we delete full wrong items, ceb: and sv: should delete them too. It is a hard task, but we as a community must do it soon or later. We could use the visualization capabilities of Wikidata Query Service (maps) to make easier to work on this task. About the alleged wrong river info, we should check they aren't subterranean or historical rivers, so they aren't shown in maps or satellite images (two possibilities I just imagined). Emijrp (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

One reason I can see has causes "duplicate" rivers, but also lakes, islands and groups of islands and many more, is that the name of the river has been written in several places of one or several maps. It look like GeoNames has scraped names from maps and put them in their database, not always checking for duplicates or identified what exactly the name is describing. I have many times complained about the quality of the "populated place"-items in GeoNames. GeoNames is not a good enough source to tell if a populated place exists in real life or not. Many times these populated places are instead administrative units. Many populated places share the name of an administrative unit, but far from always. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should rely on cebwiki/svwiki/Geonames to delete items before we remove items from what appears to be valid ones at Wikidata. Given the errors found with these entries in general, I don't think we can assimilate anything that hasn't been otherwise referenced as valid.
    --- Jura 07:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
A big part of the geonames items are in fact from the Geographic Names Server (Q1194038) database, which by itself is far more reliable - but still has some duplicates because what they did for many countries was scraping all names from the maps. At least for rivers I haven't noticed an duplicates in there so far, they were all introduced by geonames themselves; for mountain ranges I have seen a few dupes in GNS as well. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we just need to move a model where we add these as names for a feature and not as features with that name.
--- Jura 08:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

To demonstrate how much work is demanded. User:Kitayama has on svwiki for 36 days made clean up in bot created articles only related to Sweden. Lsjbot never came to Sweden on svwiki. The bot stopped before it came there. But there were still thousands of pages with links to things related to the small country of Sweden. Only to clean up those took one user 36 days, and that on svwiki alone. How much time it would take here and on cebwiki, I do not know. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'm much in favor of adding P31=Q35779580 with preferred rank to any Lsjbot-entry that doesn't any references. As items get completed, we can remove it.
    --- Jura 07:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we stop this nonsense

I am fed up with the continuous idea that other parties like GeoNames are problematic while in reality it is our own intransigence to cooperate that is largely to blame. Take GeoNames, they are interested in cooperating with us. At the time we closed the door on them "because their data was not good enough". Now we have a situation that is substantially worse. Because of this intransigence, the data was imported anyway in several Wikipedias. There is no cooperation and the current proposals makes things worse.

So what we should do instead is linking to the GeoNames database and keep track of the changes that are happening there as well. Once we start collaborating, we can track the changes at Wikidata and compare them with what exists at the Wikipedias. We should work with LSJBOT and not actively discourage him to cooperate with us. We should do better because we are supposed to be a community that cares about data and know about data. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Plan moving forward

How should be go about improving the situation? Beyond big words, I think we need specific steps that allow us to identify the quality of each item.
--- Jura 08:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had a plan to download the Q34-part of GeoNames and compare what I found there with how it is used on Wikidata/pedia. I started doing it as a part of evaluating the quality of GeoNames before the Lsjbot-project started. I quit at some point, probably because I only have 24 hours a day, and some of that time is used for sleeping, family, job and other things in life. I guess it would be a good idea to start doing that again. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
No big words, just some common sense. First, quality of each item is often binary so that approach does not help us. It is not the only way to approach both quality and cooperation. The first thing we do is to agree on what we share that is the same. Then we follow up with the shared information that differs in detail. This is where we want to find out either way what is correct. Systemic differences are identified in this way as well.
All the time results are shared with our partner in cooperation..
In the case of GeoNames, we have a situation that is not in the best interest of both Wikidata, GeoNames and Wikimedia. The first thing to accomplish is that we have GeoNames identifiers for all the items that are associated through Wikipedias with GeoNames. Then we compare the values with GeoNames and what we are informed about from the Wikipedias. In the cooperation with GeoNames, the information in the Wikipedias are secondorary as there are no methods for the continuous verification and validation of differences.
This brings me to my main point. The LSJbot used static information from GeoNames to produce texts in several Wikipedias. When we import the data in Wikidata and allow for the caching of generated texts in stead of the saving of generated texts, we allow for the import of data "unverified" at our end and still provide the best information.
The notion that every item has to be correct is a fallacy and it has brought us where we are. No cooperation, no improvement and a deficient service to the Wikipedias. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Approach : comparison by country

To quote Innocent bystander: "Well, I had a plan to download the Q34-part of GeoNames and compare what I found there with how it is used on Wikidata/pedia."

I think that could work. At some point you will end up with things that are (a) unmatched, (b) Ljs-only texts, (c) things that match other references (preferably on items), and (d) things that integrate with other Wikipedia articles. (c) and (d) shouldn't be an issue.
--- Jura 09:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

One problem is that I have good reputation here and know how to convince others here. But I do not have what is needed to convince GeoNames that this does not exists in real life. From the maps they have used as source, it looks like it exits, but I know that it doesn't. There exists something here with this name in this here, but it is not what GeoNames says it is. My changes to the GeoNames database has this far been reverted. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think that we need to be perfectly in sync with Geonames nor that users at Wikidata should be asked to edit Geonames directly. Otherwise one could just build a dynamic link to their database. If there is status here that identifies an item as (b) or maybe (former b) that could be sufficient.
    --- Jura 10:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Approach : settlements and municipalities

Another nonsense spam by ceb wikipedia is the duplication of most human settlement placenmanes in Germany (and in many other countries). At de.wikipedia and in most other wikipedias there is good reason to have the municipality and the main (often only) settlement in that municipality of the same name in one article. Any intelligent human would always do this. Not the ceb GeoNames bots. Hence, we have thousands and thousands of useless Wikidata items about that clutter our database. Personally, I'd prefer to have all Wikidata items deleted if there are no other than bot generated articles behind it AND no "human" interaction in the version history. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

You do not get it. Nonsense .. any intelligent human .. Conflating the consequence of our actions with the project the data comes from. I prefer us to work together and not insult others. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
No, you don't get it. Bots aren't human and hence cannot be insulted. But they are also not human and hence should not be allowed to conquer Wikimedia projects by spamming. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • There are two things: (a) which ones should have items and (b) for which Wikipedia can (should/must/could) write articles.
    As municipalities can change over time, I don't think it's a good idea to limit oneself to municipalities for (a). The problem arises when we have several items for identically named settlements at similar (rounded) coordinates with no other references. For these it may be good idea to focus on a single one.
    (b) is really an editorial decision up to each Wikipedia. Focusing on municipalities has the disadvantage that one has to merge these articles continuously (depending on the country).
    --- Jura 09:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
We have our own reasons for what we do but our approach has been a disaster. We decided not to cooperate and we shut the door on any cooperation. We knew at the time that the data would be used for the generation of articles and now we suffer the consequences. We will not import those articles they said .. the silly buggers. So now we have we have the worst situation possible. We do not collaborate with GeoNames, they know that some of their data is not that great and are interested to work with us and at the same time all their shit is in several Wikipedias and we do not know how to fix it.
Your notion that they need to be proven that something is right or wrong, they have common sense and accept when an argument is well presented. What we lack is trust and we do not deserve it at this time. The question is: how do we mark Wikipedia articles imported from GeoNames as problematic, how do we link them to GeoNames and how do we point to correct information. This is how we solve trust, indicate mayhem and build for improvements. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
The main problem here is not that we have duplicates of human settlements and municipalities. Because those two things are two very different concepts. It is the mixing of these two concepts on Wikipedia that confuses it for us. The "municipality of X" is often much larger than "settlement of X". They do not have the same area, they do not have the same population and they do not have the same history. No Swedish municipality is older than 46 years, but we have settlements that are over 10,000 years old. It is semantically a nightmare to mix these two concepts. In the text of an article at Wikipedia, you do not have that problem.
The real problem with the Lsjbot/GeoNames-items about settlements in these cases, is not that they are duplicates. It is that we do not know if the settlements exists at all. They came into the GeoNames database by finding a name on the map. GeoNames or Lsjbot have never secured that these names really belongs to a settlement. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The real problem is that we failed to collaborate. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
And that can be derived from that Wikidata initially was introduced to Wikipedia as a repository for Interwiki. We never should have involved interwiki into this project! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The relevance of Wikidata is based in cooperation. Thanks to the interwiki links Wikidata was relevant from day one. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
* @Jura1: ok, I've added that P31 in those specific cases, which I agree is a good idea, thanks. Should we push to have that automatically added to all the geonames->Lsjbot->wikidata items (I'd guess where the item has few statements, has a geonames id property, has a link to cebwiki and/or svwiki)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
** @ArthurPSmith: Sounds good. In general, I'd just set that the p31 to preferred and keep the original P31.
--- Jura 06:06, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Approach : cleanup cebwiki items

Suggested below: Wikidata:Project_chat#Dealing_with_our_second_planet.
--- Jura 16:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Structural issue with our "constraint violation" system

Currently, our main sanity check system ("constraint violations") rely exclusively attaching constraint directly to properties. For example : all items with property X should also have property Y. I has real uses, but also strong limitations.

One typical example: Kunstindeks Danmark Artist ID (P1138), an identifier for artists.

  • =) Good constraint item should be human. There are exceptions, like groups of people or geographical places, but no problem we can document them using the qualifier exception to constraint (P2303). S
  • =( Bad constraint: "should have a birth date". Well those are are humans should have a birth date, those that are not should not. If we want this constraint to make sense, we have to add all the items that are not humans here as well, same for death date, occupation etc. This is redundant, messy and tedious.

If we want to have a constraint stating "every human should have a birth date". This constraint should have birth date, this should be said directly in human (Q5). At the moment, we do it instead on every property that should be used exclusively for humans, with huge redundancies, and also many holes, given that items that do not use any of these properties will be left out.

Of course, constraint reports for all human (Q5) would be huge (so are those for properties like coordinate location (P625)) but I strongly feel we should move toward something like this in addition to our property-based constraint violation system. We already already properties for this type (P1963) but I do not think it is used by any tool. Any idea of anything we can do ? @Ivan A. Krestinin:. --Zolo (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"every human should have a birth date"
Complex constraints could do what you want.
We could agree to store them at Q5, so they are not property-focused, but item-focused.
Complex constraints can check multiple properties at once. d1g (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
A constraint that every human should have a birth date doesn't make sense because while we know that humans have been born we sometimes don't know when they have been born. If the database for Kunstindeks Danmark Artist ID (P1138) has a birth date for every artist in the database it can make sense to specify this contrainst the way we have it at the moment. ChristianKl (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
We can use "uknown date" values.
"humans are born" shouldn't have exceptions - at least ideally
We can also have another constraint "for specific people birth date should be filled from this database"
It might be useful to read them at Q5, not at every property. d1g (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with D1g here. There might be cases where "should have: birth date" is because it links to a database where everyone has a birth date. In the case, that would be a useful refinement of the general principle "people should have birth date". But at the moment, we have no way to know, this sort of constraint is just added for no apparent reason in authority-control properties.
See Wikidata:Database reports/Humans with missing claims. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This report sort of confirm my point: what we have here is an ad hoc set of reports for four properties that humans should have. What we need is something much more systematic, for all properties, and not just "human", for all classes. Additionnally, the page is structured into subreports based on other properties they use. It might be a technical necessity for huge classes like "human", but it will miss out instances of humans that do not already use any of these properties.
Well actually, we could probably start with upgrading {{Item documentation}} and adding properties for this type (P1963)-based Sparql queries similar to those in {{Property documentation}}. Any one feeling like giving it a try ? --Zolo (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think {{Item documentation}} is of much use. To work on all items with P31=Q5 is an infinite task. For statements that these should have, I think statement suggestions should do.
Personally, I prefer a project based approach .. e.g. all football players with reports at a relevant WikiProject.
--- Jura 09:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, humans was probably not the best example, as it is such a big and messy class. I was actually more thinking of things like buildings, paintings, perhaps also programming languages or taxa, where a class-based system could be useful. --Zolo (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, taxa have many specific properties so a property based approach works fairly well. Paintings have many reports at its dedicated project.
--- Jura 10:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I doubt taxa are an issue here. --Succu (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • To respond to your initial point in general, I think it should be easier to build specific projects for more limited fields and monitor constraints for a series of items. There is a request in phabricator to make these available by query.
    --- Jura 13:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

"See also" vs "Different from"

Today I had to say round key (Q38001368) different from (P1889) Tubular pin tumbler lock (Q1823879). What I mean is that they work together, not that they are different (that's obvious!). There is related property (P1659) but it's supposed to be used for props only (why?).

So we either should generalize related property (P1659), or create a new prop "used with". --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe use the properties "use(s)" or "operated by"? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It could be in addition
⟨ round key (Q38001368)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ use Search ⟨ opening ⟩
and
⟨ round key (Q38001368)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ use Search ⟨ closing ⟩
with qualifiers "of Q1823879" d1g (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Property_proposal/see_also_element and Wikidata:Property_proposal/related_to_(see_also). "See also" is the opposite of structured data, and does not belong on this project. --Yair rand (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

1 click WDQS queries?

I have to click twice at Property talk:P415 in order to execute query.

I would prefer to click "list of values" once and get results. d1g (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

First link is on the right, but run button is on the left, we spend ~1,5 seconds each time. d1g (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Restrict merging rights to autoconfirmed users

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T174345
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a support for this change. Please follow phab:T174345. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, here at Wikimania several contributors were talking about merging issues. Merging is a process that requires some knowledge of how Wikidata works, and as the help page states in bold, users must be absolutely certain that the two items are the same. This results in merging errors, most of them by newcomers. As it can be tricky to revert, especially if one or both the merged items was massively used as a value in statements in other items, I think it would be better to restrict merging rights to autoconfirmed users. What do you think of it? @Lea Lacroix (WMDE): would a vote on this page be enough to activate this restriction or is a full RfC needed? -Ash Crow (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe at some point we don't need to make as many merges. So it would make sense that merge would be less necessary. But this is also depends on how often things outside Wikidata change.
On other hard, merge is hidden already... Maybe we should hide it even more to avoid confusion for newcomers.  Weak support
We have a bot to replace indirect items with direct links, but not an unmerge bot right now. d1g (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The gadget could be set up so that only autoconfirmed users can use it. Getting autoconfirmed is a low bar, so gives us about a week, and a low number of edits, so seems reasonable approach.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support Looks fair enough to me. Pamputt (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support I simply agree. I have similar proposal in past (Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2016/05#Mergers_limitation) and nothing substantial changed since then.--Jklamo (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support I also support this restriction. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support -- Maxlath (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose it might be good to restrict, but there is no demonstration of what does it help. What is the rate of false VS correct mergers by autoconfirmed users, vs the same rate by not autoconfirmed users? The simply answer of those inside the club, seems to be restrict, restrict, restrict. But are those that are inside the club, the editors that commit significantly less errors? Does the rate change after one becomes and autoconfirmed user? Are there other options on reducing wrong mergers? How many wrong mergers are there ? Is there any policy on when something should be restricted? 77.179.188.123 13:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I can understand that statistics would be useful, though I would like to reflect upon the proposal in a different way. We know that editing WD requires some knowledge of WD and the wikis and it is particularly the case with merges. Having a bad merge is highly problematic where it goes unnoticed, so emphasising the complexity and a slightly raised level of competence is not a bad thing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Not many edits BTH, If it were hundreds or thousands, then gadget would save time. d1g (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support this can be (de-facto only?) one of exception of Wikipedia:IPs are human too (Q13164301), @GZWDer: I'd love to say that anyone who're hating log in, or are not possible to login citation needed (Q3544030) should request for IPBE rather than using puppet IPs. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support Sensitive issue with the potential of damage with a lot of cleanup. --Hedwig in Washington (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I haven't looked into other people's mergers recently, but are problems really due to not-autoconfirmed users merging?
--- Jura 10:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I made a query (items merged during the last 30 days that aren't redirects at the moment). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I forked it to do the ones that haven't been de-merged: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/21056 . @Ash Crow: did you do some analysis on any of these?
--- Jura 12:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support: makes sense since people also can't move pages on Wikipedia until they reach autoconfirmed. The impact is on the same scale as that in my opinion, but I would love to hear from the developers if this is "allowed". Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Free books

Hoi, when organisations have free books available for reading, it makes sense to indicate this in our items for these books. Obviously, when such an organisation we want to know about the authors it knows. My question, how do we indicate in what format a particular books is available at that organisation? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: at least distribution format (P437), I forgot where other properties were. d1g (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
for organization: distributed by (P750)
Last piece is about "free" is open question d1g (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Free is a matter of context. When people are free to come and read it, it is good enough for the purpose of enticing people to read. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Book as reference

Hello. Is there an example how to use a book as a reference? Not an online book. Xaris333 (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Help:Sources#Books. If the book does not yet have in item, it is a pain to set everything up properly. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: and since you asked for examples: here are some… Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Can you check it? Big moments of Cypriot Football 1934-2014 (1st edition) (Q38058680) Xaris333 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Checked, but it needs more complexity according to Help:Sources unfortunately. May I do this? —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course. Xaris333 (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Mostly done. There are now two items: Big moments of Cypriot Football 1934-2014 (Q38098587) (about the work) and Big moments of Cypriot Football 1934-2014 (1st edition) (Q38058680) (about the edition). You use the latter within the reference with P248. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Wait. The book is only one in Greek. No English translation. Why we need 2 items? Xaris333 (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Help:Sources#Books (relevant guideline here) tells us that we use the “FRBR model” (Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (Q16388)) from library sciences to model book sources. We therefore distinguish a work from its editions with individual items according to this model, which has several advantages—but it also sometimes seems to be overly detailed, as in this case. References have to follow some standard in order to be properly processed by machines, thus it is best follow them in this case as well. A human data consumer would probably be happy with a simpler reference, but in the end Wikidata is read by machines. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. So for every book I have to create two items. Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: do you know if we have a property for the number of the copies of a book? Xaris333 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean how many copies have been printed? I can't find a suitable property for that at Wikidata:WikiProject Books… —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Ok. Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Xaris333: quantity (P1114) can be used according to its Wikidata property example (P1855). We have also total produced (P1092). I think it can be used for all editions together. - Kareyac (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with language

Hello. Sometimes when I am using title (P1476), I am writing the first letters of the language and select the correct one, but when I am trying to save it, I get an error message that it can recognize the langue. I can save after I do the same procedure 2 or 3 times. Xaris333 (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I had this problem some time ago, but now it become better for me. May be you should try to enter a code (ISO) of language instead of its name? --Infovarius (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Probably phab:T158058.--GZWDer (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with our second planet

The bot on the cebuano Wikipedia is quickly building a second planet on Wikidata with all the geographical items that it is currently duplicating at high speed. I have just let a message to his operator here. If you want to help us and get us a relief of about two years in order to be able to merge all the unnecessary items, don't hesitate to add a kind message under mine to basically say that: 1. We really thank you for trying. 2. Seriously, whatever, it is resulting in a disaster that now has us need a break. Thank you in advance. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro, Lsj: new items without claims aren't that problematic as duplicates with claims.
Do we have major cities as duplicates?
If they have coordinates we can merge them, but if not then it is more difficult (both items should be filled correctly). d1g (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
There might be another solution that stopping the bot there. It would be stopping to create items for cebuano articles here. This Wikipedia is using an uncommon method to do its stuff, maybe we can do the same and adopt an uncommon solution to deal with it? Thierry Caro (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
We can delete all the cebuano-only item here and let them add links to Wikidata only in items that have another language that would not be Swedish. I don't know, but it's really time something should be done. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 Supportnot bot-importing articles from cebwiki seems a simple pragmatic solution, indeed :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support (I don't know enough about the ongoing/planned processes to fix the problem to decide.) It's disgusting to be forced to look up all place items in suggestions to find the useful one among cebwiki ones. --Marsupium (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC), 16:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Duplicate is Wikidata's inexorable trend. We don't need to prevent them in advance. Make them unsearchable is much worse. In addition, we don't exclude a single wiki.--GZWDer (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support. At least in the Philippines, there is a duplication between ADM2 and PPL entries in GeoNames. I've been merging articles on the Cebuano Wikipedia and Wikidata items whenever I encounter them in the course of my Wikidata editing. This is getting quite tiring to be honest. —seav (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Weak support I agree with points by @GZWDer:, but geodata is difficult to unmess when it is messy or not-so-fresh. The best is to import them by desc population or area by area. It is easier to merge area by area, but not planet by planet. d1g (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose we just discussed the problems we have with cooperation. This is really inappropriate. We first need to appreciate if we want to collaborate and this is just a side show, also it is the bed we made up ourselves. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The user behind the cebuano bot is actually OK for us to stop creating items for its articles, if that may help us. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support. This has been discussed enough already, I think. − Pintoch (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support, I would not mind if the original databases were reliable, but they are not.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support This has been going on for way too long. Unfortunately, I don't see any other option at the moment but to delete all cebuano-only articles related to geographic objects. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 19:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment No real arguments, no clear examples in this thread. Lsjbot mentioned in the initial message is not operating on Wikidata, is it? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Lsj was never active here and fled from svwiki recently. --Succu (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually not "recently": ... My joy in contributing to Swedish Wikipedia has been killed by these discussions. Therefore, I leave the project until further notice.--GZWDer (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
As I said above about "region by region" @Matěj Suchánek::
Moscow oblast
Bekasovo (Q31913297) Bekasovo (Q4081294) - approximate coordinates
Lugovaya (Q35720921) Lugovoy (Q16672299) - both without population but with coordinates
This situation in other regions too.
We should write a program so that such "different" items are not created in first place.
90% of merges should be done by programs, only ambiguous edits should be left for humans. d1g (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Архангельское is not a "small city" as ceb wiki claims, but a palace complex.
It would never have real ATE codes: Arkhangelskoye Estate (Q2861586) ОКТМО
ceb wiki has very little interest to capture such differences or lack resources to fix all mistakes d1g (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support Mass imports from WP are a mess. Snipre (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment See ceb:Kategoriya:Articles without Wikidata item. Cc @Mr. Ibrahem:. --XXN, 22:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I still thinks creating new items, which probably include many duplicates, is much better than having no items at all. As Wikidata is not compulsory, someone getting tired may just ignore them. The items ensure that everything that any wikipedia has written about has some record in wikidata, and can therefore be found and enhanced (including duplicate detection). Also User:Pasleim/projectmerge is a place to find possible (ceb-other wiki) duplicates (and thus find new links between wikipedia and geonames), which can not be used without existing items.--GZWDer (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I think we should have done this with other parts of Wikidata that isn't useful for this project. disambigs, templates, project-pages do not fulfil any structural need at all here. It is only here for the interwiki, and that is not the purpose of this project. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
It is our purpose to support other Wikimedia wikis, including storing they interlanguage links. When will you finally understand this? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
And that has proved to be a bad idea. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Those items meet our notability criteria so aren't eligible for deletion. If you want to change to the notability criteria to allow us to start discriminating between articles we like and ones we don't, you should start an RfC because that would be quite a fundamental change. I think it would be a bad idea, once we start doing it for one Wikipedia, it makes it much harder to say we shouldn't do the same for other Wikipedias. One of Wikidata's purposes is to be able to provide structured data to Wikimedia projects, which means we have to deal with Wikipedias doing things we don't like. If someone on the Cebuano Wikipedia wants to start fetching data from Wikidata, how are they supposed to do that if we don't allow the items to exist?
The way this all happened is very frustrating but Lsj has said that Lsjbot is nearly done and once we're not getting a constant flood of new items, it will be much easier to clean things up. Most data in GeoNames is imported from other databases and therefore should have other IDs too (I've already added lots of IDs for other databases and I plan to continue doing that). All large databases contain errors but we have a way to deal with that: Mark the affected statements as deprecated (and preferably also report the errors to the databases they were found in).
- Nikki (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki: this is not about discrimination but about number of editors with capability to merge ceb items and their merge speed.
If we were merging English planets it would be much quicker. d1g (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Nikki: d1g (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose What Nikki said. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose I don’t like that this mass import happened, but deleting the items now would definitely be the wrong thing to do IMHO. And stopping the import now also would be awkward – leaving us with a partial but incomplete set of items (which, to people who stumble upon it later, might well be mistaken for a complete set of items). So I think the best course of action now is to finish up the import (preferably with a healthy throttle, so it doesn’t put so much strain on the servers – there’s no hurry), and then see what needs to be cleaned up. —Galaktos (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment we can find duplicates items by many tools or sparql like: 
SELECT DISTINCT ?item1 ?item1Label ?item2 ?item2Label ?value 
{
	?item1 wdt:P1566 ?value .
	?item2 wdt:P1566 ?value .
	FILTER( ?item1 != ?item2 && STR( ?item1 ) < STR( ?item2 ) ) .
	SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "ar,en" } .
}
LIMIT 100
Try it!
--Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment why are you creating them as duplicates and leaving it to others to clean up?
--- Jura 16:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Two items with identical GeoNames ID (P1566) are not always exact duplicates - thanks to the mess propagated from some Wikipedias mixing municipalities and settlements in one article, we can't say with certitude without a proper individual review if a value of GeoNames ID (P1566) in such item is 100% correct. --XXN, 10:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What would be a query to display a map of all the cebuano-only items within less than yyy kilometers from location Qxxx? It would give us a sense of how big the problem is around our favourite personal locations. Maybe this would shift opinions one way or another. Thierry Caro (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Don't delete as they are notable, but stop the import for now so we can at least clean up the current mess. Especially stop )or better remove) to import elevation above sea level (P2044) which is total bogus (see e.g. Khao Luang (Q31687791)), and add all the missing imported from Wikimedia project (P143) - many items in Thailand did not have them. It would be great if we could match the corresponding database entries from Geographic Names Server (Q1194038) which was the original source of most of them, but Geonames did not keep the IDs - the coordinates in GNS are better than those in geonames, and have less duplicated. A way to mark the items which haven't been checked by a human would also be great - so that e.g. in a query fors hill only those verified will show up. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support For the UK this question comes up most sharply at the level of village (Q532) vs civil parish (Q1115575).
There are currently about 10,500 civil parishes in England. For about 8,000 we currently have a joint item with some form of human settlement (this is the typical situation if the two have the same name); about 2,000 have their own item (usually where the parish does not have exactly the same name as any of the settlements it contains); and about 300 which have not yet been identified to items here.
Having two separate items introduces a difficulty with sitelinks from en-wiki to Commons. In such cases, the en-wiki article will usually be linked to the item for the settlement here; whereas the Commons link will tend to go to the whole parish (as the category will tend to include views from all across the parish, and having a solid representation of the parishes, being the lowest level of the official administrative hierarchy, is important in the automatic placing of images from Geograph, Wiki Loves Monuments, or other sources where the images come with geotags).
In the long run we may end up creating more items here that are separate for parishes and settlements. But in the short run, the priority is to get a solid list of CPs, solidly matched to Commons and vice-versa. And there's still a lot of work to do, simply to get to there -- eg: live CPs not yet identified to items (~ 300); items marked as CPs that are not matched to a current live CP - these may be former CPs, unmatched CPs or simply mistakes (~ 600); CPs without a Commons category (~ 300), CP Commons cats with /more/ than one incoming link (~ 90); historical data to try to clarify; plus the latest crop of official changes to integrate (mergers, boundary changes, splits, renamings etc).
This is what needs to be focussed on for the time being, in a controlled way -- at this stage the creation of lots of extra items would be really not helpful. For the time being the relevant role of an item can be distinguished on a statement by the qualifier P794 (P794) or now more preferably subject has role (P2868) -- as done on Ab Kettleby (Q3490381) for example for the GeoNames ID (P1566) and TOID (P3120) statements. (It is also worth noting that many external sites also treat the parishes and settlements together, so for linking to them it is quite useful to have the one combined item for the external link statement to be on).
I accept that it may make sense in time to split some of these items. But I suggest that it is useful to do that no more quickly than the corresponding categories are split on Commons. That in turn is likely to be a slow manual job, as there doesn't seem to be any obvious way to automate it. And it may not even be desirable on Commons, if users want to be able to see all images from both the settlement and the parish on the one page, or indeed if the boundaries of the settlement are fuzzily defined, and it is hard to say which images belong to it or not.
So to summarise: (i) in this area, for the time being, there is real value in trying to get as close as we can to a 1:1 match between Wikidata items and Commons categories; (ii) there is a lot of work to do simply to debug what we already have; (iii) splitting these items creates significant extra difficulties of its own, and significant extra work to sort out, for no urgent need, getting in the way of other work which is much more pressing and useful.
Therefore, for the time being, whenever I see a parish item, with sitelinks only to sv-wiki and ceb-wiki, and no distinct Commons cat, I shall be marking it instance of (P31) Wikimedia duplicated page (Q17362920). Jheald (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Note deleting these item does not make this better. It's Wikidata's practice to have seperate items about different but related concepts, like protein/gene, given name/surname, work/edition, where Wikipedia tend to conflate them.--GZWDer (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Deleting is definitely be the wrong thing. It is Wikidata's job to provide correct data. It is not the job of cebwiki to pay attention to other Wikipedias or to make the the work in Wikidata easier.--Cavaliere grande (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
We can provide correct data without these items. It's not Wikidata's job to be beholden to cebwiki, if it doesn't suit us here. Jheald (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Multi lingual support for Wikidata and SQID

Hoi, as it seems that SQID is one of the preferred tools, it is important to consider its support for other languages. Technically it does not. It only uses content as it happens to be in Wikidata. Consider this for instance. I have chosen Russian as a major language with major support in Wikidata.

My question to us all is. How can we raise our game and properly support other languages. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@GerardM: what do you mean by "not supported"? I looked at Russian interface and found very little not-translated things (mainly, names of parameters). --Infovarius (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
The software itself shows texts in English only. The data that is in Wikidata itself is whatever label is provided. This is not about Wikidata, it is about the software that is SQID. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Using a bot to fix statement with Gregorian date earlier than 1584

Some time ago User:Addshore tagged a lot of date entries with statement with Gregorian date earlier than 1584 (Q26961029) as part of phab:T105100. This was always meant to be the first step in the process to clean this up. I'm considering using a bot to fix the obvious cases to reduce the huge backlog. Approach:

The bot would change the calendar from Gregorian to Julian and remove statement with Gregorian date earlier than 1584 (Q26961029) (example edit). Is this approach correct? Some queries to get an idea of the numbers:

Feedback appreciated. Wouldn't want a bot to do 30.000+ edits and realize later the approach was incorrect. Multichill (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It's always been agreed that there is no year 0 between AD 1 and 1 BC, or equivalently, 1 CE and 1 BCE. There was no consensus about whether, when using an all-numeric date format, 1 BCE should be represented as 0 or -1. Dates probably were entered incorrectly during the period of no consensus, so all BC dates should be checked. The consensus now is that when using RDF, 1 BCE is 0, but when using JSON, 1 BCE is -1. When using the user interface, always use the letters BC or BCE for years before 1 and never use 0 or a negative sign. See Help:Dates. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem was explained here : phab:T129823. This means that every date BC with a precision of 7 (year) and higher (month, day ..) needs to be checked manually and should be out of scope for the bot. I am not sure for precisions decade and century : some rule should be made (decade 450BC : ok, decade 451BC : manual check). Other precisions can be processed. --Melderick (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Announcement: Fallback indicators hidden on variant fallbacks

Hello all,

we’ll be deploying a minor change to the Wikidata interface soon. If your interface is set up in a language other than English, when you view an entity page, you can see entity labels in other languages than the one you selected, according to language fallbacks (e. g. Austrian German users might see German labels if there is no Austrian German label, or even English labels if there is no German label either for an entity). The language of the label being displayed is shown in a small indicator, e. g. Douglas Adams English. From August 29th forward, that indicator will be hidden by default if the user language and the language of the label are variants of the same language, e. g. if the user interface is in Austrian German and the label is in German.

If you don’t like this change, you can override it by adding a small piece of code to your your common.css. If you encounter any problem with this change, feel free to leave a comment under this Phabricator ticket.

Best regards, Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Small change: it's not going to happen today, but tomorrow, August 30th. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #275

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
  • WikidataCon
    • The organization team is still looking for sponsors to support the event and provide even more awesome stuff to the attendees. If your company can support the WikidataCon, please get in touch with Lydia.
    • Seeing the enthusiasm of the community for the WikidataCon, we raised our attendees limit from 150 to 200 persons. The last tickets will be released on September 1st. People who registered on the waitlist will be notified when a ticket is available.
    • The program committee is currently reviewing and organizing the submissions. We will contact the speakers soon, and publish the program in the beginning of September (around 6th).
    • We're looking for a keynote speaker who could bring an external point of view on ontologies. If you know interesting people, feel free to help
  • Development
    • Worked on fixing the technical glitch in the UI (phabricator:T173543)
    • Did polishing on the Constraint Checks gadget (for example phabricator:T173738)
    • Worked on caching constraints checks results which is needed to enable constraints checks for all logged-in users (phabricator:T173696)
    • Made progress on checking constraints also on qualifiers and references (phabricator:T168532)
    • Worked more on making it easier to see when input in a property or value input field is not recognized (phabricator:T170531)
    • Fighting with load issues in the job queue (phabricator:T173710)
    • Looking into not showing language fallback hints for dialects to make the UI less cluttered for them and make it less necessary to enter labels and descriptions for them (phabricator:T174318)
    • Wrapping up our experiments with the new front-end technologies

You can see all open tickets related to Wikidata here.

What does "number of persons per QID" means? There are a lot of Johns with QID 7? Syced (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but 6 not 7, more precisely with a QID between Q5500000 and Q6499999 [17].
    The milestone Q38000000 mentioned above as well has a qid of 38,000,000. If you break this down into 38 parts of 1,000,000 (last one would be from 37,500,000 to 38,499,999), it attempts to estimate how many items there are with P31:Q5 in each. The chart shows that there is a noticeable difference before and after Q30000000. A bit silly as an approach. You can do the chart also with P31=Q5 directly. It takes longer to run, but gives a similar chart. It should probably use FLOOR() instead of ROUND().
    --- Jura 07:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

strange history bug

it should be red and decrease in size as usual

Purge doesn't help. d1g (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If they update the content model, the raw page size might increase even if data is removed from an item. This is more likely to happen after long times without any edits, as in this case. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
See Help:FAQ. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Musical notation?

There is a specific group of items (such as melodic modes in various musical traditions) that are much better distinguished within Wikidata by having some sort of representative musical notation. While I see that Parsons code (P1236) exists, all major scale (Q190812)s would end up having "*uuuuuuu" for their ascending scales (or "*ddddddd" for their descending scales), which says nothing about the intervals between the notes that distinguish those modes from other modes. Additionally, many Indian melodic modes have differing ascending and descending scales and distinguishing motifs, as well as dominant notes, neither of which are well-representable on Wikidata. In the event a property is proposed for musical notation, should a new datatype be created for this or should the existing string datatype be used? And should any specific notation format be used in that case (abc notation maybe)? Mahir256 (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • This topic seems to me like one where's likey that there's prior art. How do other people do representative musical notation in knowledge databases?
Unicode provides a lot of musical symbols besides simple letters. For charts of music, moving them to Commons might be preferable. ChristianKl (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: I am not immediately aware of any musical notation scheme used in other knowledge databases. I don't think it appropriate to regenerate a musical line entirely using Unicode symbols, as there isn't a way of indicating pitch aside from flats and sharps and the like within the appropriate Unicode block (this may be better, however, for various Indian musical meters). As for the uploading of musical lines to Commons, the Score extension exists for single lines of LilyPond input; why not take advantage of that here? Mahir256 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Parsons code (P1236) is only suitable for a very deficient representation of melodies, definitely not for musical modes. The representation of modes by ascending scale is merely a question of convention; technically, you can arrange the tones in any order you want and add the information, which of them has some special function in the mode (reference point, tonic (Q210411), dominant, final etc.).
You could use a string in some pre-defined syntax for the pitch structure (not necessarily abc, maybe lilypond syntax provides better tools for "modes" of non-western music tradition...) or define a specific syntax for the purpose of the particular Wikidata property (something like "1 2 ♭3 4 5 6 7" or "T-s-T-T-T-T-s" as used in en.wiki). Also, you can use pictures like File:Kirchentonarten Neitram-Schema in c.jpg, File:Musical-Modes.jpg or File:PitchConstellations.svg (after extracting pictures for every particular mode needed).
IMHO, the best practice for a database project would be describing a mode through a set of statements describing the particular tones (intervals?) as "members" of the mode. I'm not sure, if has part(s) of the class (P2670) or has part(s) (P527) should be used, or maybe a specific property should be created. The special roles of some tones could be added as qualifiers or they can have separate statements.--Shlomo (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@Shlomo, ChristianKl: Within Indian melodic modes, no note bears the role of "tonic", "subdominant", "supertonic", or the like within those modes as they do in Western melodic modes (with the exceptions of vadi (Q1923994) and samavadi (Q601825)); they are identified primarily by their Arohana (Q2011823), avarohana (Q13583589), and pakad (Q7125406) (see how all of those links were in my original comment?). As such, simply adding notes in the manner of C major scale (Q20640627) is not suitable. A predefined string pattern may well work, but it would have to be an extremely simplified form of LilyPond for a decent regex to be created for it while also maintaining compatibility with the Score extension. (On a separate note, items for solfege notes may need to be created that are distinct from notes for pitch (i.e. movable do vs C (Q843813).) Mahir256 (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it OK to import coordinates from wikipedia and how it can be done?

Wikidata:Coordinates tracking recommends importing coordinates from Wikipedia. What is the easiest way to do it? I guess that it is doable manually, but clearly it can be done easier (in extreme case by fully-automatic bot, but at least directing some tool to copy coordinates from specific articles should be available somewhere) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Pywikibot's coordinate_import.py is an example. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
>And try to find a Wikipedia you think is the best for your set of articles. A lot of villages in Sweden had coordinates imported from bot created articles on nlwiki, and those had very poor accuracy. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Life span

We have life expectancy (P2250) for „life expectancy for this group or species”. Any ideas how to express the maximal observed life span of a living being? --Succu (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Succu: I think that we should have a special property for that. Tubezlob (🙋) 15:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Succu, Tubezlob:I created the proposal https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/highest_observed_lifespan . ChristianKl (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How to narrow down imprecise dates

Many dates, like birth / death dates for people or creation dates for artworks found in literature do not fall into neat day/month/year/decade/century precision. Commons c:template:Complex date template (used on 3M pages) lists many of the ways one can specify such dates. Many of the complex dates can be expressed on Wikidata using sourcing circumstances (P1480), start time (P580), end time (P582), earliest date (P1319), latest date (P1326) qualifier properties, however many dates used on Commons can not be (AFAIK) expressed using current model. For example:

  • second half of 9th century
  • early 10th century
  • mid 9th century
  • spring of 1599
  • third quarter of 8th century

Is there a way to express such dates on Commons? And if not than should we create a new qualifier to express them or shall we extend the use of sourcing circumstances (P1480), applies to part (P518) or some other existing one. --Jarekt (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't you add "earliest date:750/latest date:775" to express "third quarter of 8th century"? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 Support for adding "earliest date:750/latest date:775" for "third quarter of 8th century".
"early", "mid", "spring" etc. are more tricky though. I think the main problem here is information loss due to back and forth translating. We could translate them to explicit dates and use broad spans, e.g. date of birth: "spring of 1599" ->
⟨ subject ⟩ date of birth (P569) View with SQID ⟨ 1599 ⟩
earliest date (P1319) View with SQID ⟨ 1599-01 ⟩
latest date (P1326) View with SQID ⟨ 1599-03 ⟩
(1599-03 is inclusive, hence broad). (RKDartists (Q17299517) does something similar when they assume dates of birth to be in a span of some days (I don't know their cut off) before dates of baptism.) object named as (P1932) can be used to cite the original wording (actually the same example at Property talk:P1932#Creation discussion). But I can imagine that something in between the machine-readable explicit dates and the human imprecise object named as (P1932) could be useful, too. Retranslating the "spring" translation to human language brings information loss, object named as (P1932) is not useful for present localized versions of for example a value in German "geboren im frühen August". A new qualifier could supply this, perhaps in addition to earliest date (P1319), latest date (P1326) and object named as (P1932) the broad machine-readable explicit dates. I'm undecided if an extended sourcing circumstances (P1480) should do that. I don't like that intermediate solution a lot, but can't think of a better one right now. --Marsupium (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The names of seasons (spring, summer, autumn, winter) have different meaning in the northern and southern temperate zones. Other concepts tend to be used in the tropics. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and 1599 is in Little Ice Age (Q190530), so the date could be later only because of that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You've just made me feel quite bad for not thinking about that. It shouldn't be much of a problem here though, we can have items for "northern hemisphere spring"/"northern temperate zone spring" and whatever else needed.
Also that will still be very imprecise and thoughts on the begin and end of seasons differ a lot depending on region and period. For the German middle ages and early modern period the standard work for all those questions is Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Q38141212), for "spring" definitions s. v. "Jahreszeiten" (German version online).
Context dependency is an argument for a more human language approach here. And eventual need for more specific terms might be an argument for a new property, against useing sourcing circumstances (P1480). --Marsupium (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Marsupium, thanks for mentioning object named as (P1932). I did not remembered about it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Let me add some examples:

--Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I have a problem "translating" dates found in the published sources. So I don't think "early 16th century" should be changed to "earliest date 1500-01-01"/"latest date = 1520-12-31" because we don't know what "early" means to the authority cited - is it 10 years? 25? I would prefer we add the ability to record exactly what is in a published source. - PKM (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
    Some languages can write "16th century" as "1500-talet". In my language (Swedish) I can write it in both ways. Same thing with levels in a building. Sometimes the ground level is "1" and sometimes the next level is "1". In Linköping University Hospital (Q6554447) the ground level is "9". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Commons c:Module:Complex date handles translation of many date related phrases to few dozens languages, and centuries in Swedish are written using "1500-talet" notation. Translation is not an issue, the issue is how to save such phrases in Wikidata so the information so it can be retrived latter. --Jarekt (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion I am proposing New property: refine_date. Please comment. --Jarekt (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

How to express the instruments often used in a music genre?

The music genre pìobaireachd (Q1457753) is overwhelmingly often performed using the instrument great Highland bagpipe (Q2164192). Similarly, rock music is often performed with bass, vocal, drums, guitar.

How can I express that on Wikidata?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe has characteristic (P1552)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
⟨ great Highland bagpipe (Q2164192)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ use Search ⟨ object or value ⟩
isn't bad or even
⟨ great Highland bagpipe (Q2164192)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ genre (P136) View with SQID ⟨ object or value ⟩
d1g (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources for being a human

There is a discussion going on Talk:Q35243900 about instance of (P31)human (Q5) and references. More input is needed, please leave your comments there. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2017/08&oldid=657866477"