Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/09

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Contents

Gadget for Scholia

I have the Reasonator gadget activated, which puts a customised link to that tool on the left hand navigation of every item.

Please could we have a similar gadget for Scholia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Do you want it to show up next to every item? Shouldn't it only show up next to items of the relevant types? I suspect that makes it a bit harder to write. − Pintoch (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm content with it being on every item. I've already raised tickets on Scholia's GitHub for improving handling of "no (relevant) data" items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Opera merge

Telemaco (Telemaco (Q1393328)) is the same piece as Telemaco (Telemaco (Q3982867)) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

No, but no label (Q30611686) and Telemaco (Q1393328) are the same. I've merged them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Delete item Q39014724

Please delete item Q39014724, because it's unnecessary. Thank you! P.T.Đ (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know that space. Thanks for your help! P.T.Đ (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Merge gadget ?

Hi, I tried to merged no label (Q28946545) and manganese(II) sulfate monohydrate (Q27159104) but this failed. Is there a problem with the merge gadget or is there a problem with the itmes ? Snipre (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The latter: the first one is an instance of the class represented by the second one (ie. merges to items where one links to the second one are rejected). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Q27159104 now has no labels, in any language. Can someone remedy that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
When I see the molecular formulas of both item, then it's 2 different chemical compounds. They might be related, but they aren't the same. (I restored the labels by restoring the latest version before Snipre started removing information.) Mbch331 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mbch331: perhaps it is good to study again your chemistry lectures:
Both compounds have the same molar mass, the same CAS number and the same InChIKey. For two different compounds, this is quite strange. But if you extend a little more you analysis, you will see that manganese(II) sulfate monohydrate (Q27159104) has a chemical formula which doesn't correspond to the InChI property, to the molar mass and the canonical SMILES. And finally, if you look for the real manganese sulfate, you will find manganese sulfate (Q409393). So manganese(II) sulfate monohydrate (Q27159104) is a mixture of data representing manganese sulfate and manganese sulfate monohydrate, but as these two compounds have already a dedicated item, manganese(II) sulfate monohydrate (Q27159104) is a duplicate. So the merge is justified. Snipre (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Help Trying to query Panama Papers and Citizenship or Place of Birth

I want to show a Bubble Chart. Yet I keep getting Query is Malformed: Bad Aggregate. What to do??? Please help

SELECT (COUNT(DISTINCT ?person) AS ?count) ?country_of_citizenship ?country_of_citizenshipLabel WHERE {

 ?person wdt:P793 wd:Q23702848.
 SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
 OPTIONAL { ?person wdt:P27 ?country_of_citizenship. }

} GROUP BY ?country_of_citizenshipLabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:be14:200:c6d:75e7:273a:135a (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2017‎

You need to group by ?country_of_citizenship as well, since that’s also SELECTed without an aggregate function:
SELECT (COUNT(DISTINCT ?person) AS ?count) ?country_of_citizenship ?country_of_citizenshipLabel WHERE {

 ?person wdt:P793 wd:Q23702848.
 SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
 OPTIONAL { ?person wdt:P27 ?country_of_citizenship. }

}
GROUP BY ?country_of_citizenship ?country_of_citizenshipLabel
Try it! --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Open Library links to Wikidata

I mentioned before that we are collaborating with Open Library, it is part of the Internet Archive. In a major (imho) development they now link to Wikidata from their author pages. Check out Emile Zola for instance. What this indicates is the collaboration that is happening, what it enables is for us to do even more. Remember Open Library has **many** free ebooks and it is one way to get our authors and readers to read. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC) PS A big thank you to Charles Horn & Mek Karpales (at OL)

Imports Module:Wikidata

Just in case it can interest other Wikipedias, we have recently streamlined fr:Module:Wikidata. I have seen that it has already been copied in several other languages, but it is rather complex to do as it has a lot of local dependencies. The module is now a bit simpler, with 3 less submodules, and better documented. en:Module:Wikidata and en:Module:WikidataIB are almost self-contained, and as such much easier to import, but they are also much less versatile. Other versions, like cs:Modul:Wikidata and and ru:Модуль:Wikidata also appear to have interesting features and may be useful to others. --Zolo (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Help

The English article en:Dreadnoughts (video game) should be linked to the French article fr:Dreadnoughts (jeu vidéo, 1992) about the same game from 1992. Instead the French article is linked to the English article en:Dreadnought (video game) about a game with a similar title that was released this year! Can someone fix this please, I do not know how to do merges. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:F547:54CF:BB57:887D 13:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Pasleim (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #276

Definition of alternative ingredients in Material (P:18)

Is it possible to define in material P186 an alternative ingredients/ substitute? An example might be a table, which could be either made out of wood or metal or something different? best regards, --Scoid d (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

We need a qualifier for "typical" parts and materials from "possible" and "compatible". d1g (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Other useful values might be "original/traditional", and "regional" (to be paired with "valid in place"). These would be very helpful for clothing and textiles which are often traditionally wool, silk, etc. but are now frequently synthetics or blends, or where different fibers are used in different places. - PKM (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Liangent-bot

Should bots be clearing items in order to add a link? [1]

If this kind of editing is permitted, then how do we check whether or not information was lost? The diff shows all data removed with the edit, and no matches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Liangent: ^^ --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Help needed converting Ordinance Survey National Grid references to coordinates for Wikidata import

Hi all

I'm helping import a list of British castles into Wikidata here, unfortunately the spreadsheet we have does no provide normal coordinates, only Survey National Grid references. My question is how do we convert these? We have over 1000 sites so manually will not be possible, here is a direct link to the spreadsheet if anyone knows how to do the conversions.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Looks like there is a batch converter here that may let you paste in a column of grid references.
Alternatively there are certainly library subroutines in Python or Perl for this, that could be used as the basis for a script.
Note that we should probably have items with coordinates already for almost all of these, from previous imports of listed buildings / ancient monuments. But I'm sure it's well worth also having the coordinates from the spreadsheet if possible, to sanity check the possible matches. Jheald (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi @Jheald:, thanks very much fr your help, luckily the online converter worked perfectly :) Thanks again, --John Cummings (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Same?

no label (Q21611695) and Pierre Viala (Q1448769)? --Magnus Manske (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no label (Q21611695)'s National Library of Greece ID (P3348) link says "owl:sameAs http://viaf.org/viaf/77099628" which matches Pierre Viala (Q1448769)'s VIAF ID (P214). Merged. Syced (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

New notification on wikis when a page is connected to Wikidata

Hello all,

For your information, during the last months, we deployed a new notification type on the Wikimedia projects where the sitelinks are provided by Wikidata. When an editor creates a new page (Wikipedia article, Wikivoyage page, etc.) and this page is connected later to a Wikidata item, the creator of the page now receives a notification to inform him about that, with a message like “The page X has been connected to a Wikidata item” and a link to this item.

This will hopefully help people to be more aware of Wikidata and the support we provide to the other projects. This feature will be disable by default for existing editors, and enabled by default for new editors.

The deployment is now complete on all the Wikimedia wikis. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing data in two queries

Thanks to User:Jezzaman42, who ash just started editing Wikidata, for highlighting issues with these two queries:

No date of death for John Smith (Q332377) in:

SELECT ?human ?humanLabel ?image ?dod ?pobLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?human wdt:P31 wd:Q5.
  ?human wdt:P39 wd:Q16707842.
  ?human wdt:P734 wd:Q1158446.
  OPTIONAL {
    ?human wdt:P18 ?image.
    ?human wdt:P570 ?dod.
    ?human wdt:P19 ?pob.
  }
}
LIMIT 100

Try it!

Two blank rows, for Lord Charles Bentinck (Q128343) and William Bentinck, 4th Duke of Portland (Q128336), in:

SELECT ?human ?image ?dod ?pobLabel ?occupation ?occupationLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?human wdt:P31 wd:Q5.
  ?human wdt:P39 wd:Q16707842.
  ?human wdt:P39 wd:Q28841847.
  OPTIONAL {
    ?human wdt:P18 ?image.
    ?human wdt:P570 ?dod.
    ?human wdt:P19 ?pob.
    ?human wdt:P106 ?occupation.
  }
}
LIMIT 1000

Try it!

Can anyone see why the specified items' data is not showing? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You need to have each optional statement in a single OPTIONAL block, then it will work. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Like this?

SELECT ?human ?image ?dod ?pobLabel ?occupation ?occupationLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?human wdt:P31 wd:Q5.
  ?human wdt:P39 wd:Q16707842.
  ?human wdt:P39 wd:Q28841847.
  OPTIONAL {
    ?human wdt:P18 ?image.
           }
  OPTIONAL {
    ?human wdt:P570 ?dod.
           }
  OPTIONAL {
    ?human wdt:P19 ?pob.
           }
  OPTIONAL {
    ?human wdt:P106 ?occupation.
           } 
}
LIMIT 1000

Try it!

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: - See Wikidata:SPARQL_tutorial#OPTIONAL - "Note: it’s very important to use separate OPTIONAL clauses here... an optional clause with multiple triples only matches when all those triples can be satisfied." I'd say this is an interesting SPARQL quirk - an apparent simplification that people would understandably try will likely not yield the desired results, yet it will also not fail. -- Fuzheado (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Program of the WikidataCon

Hello all,

The program of the WikidataCon is now published on-wiki. You will find there a lot of different formats, topics and speakers, during the two days of the conference.

More information will be added in the next weeks. If you think that any useful information is missing, feel free to let a comment on the talk page.

Thanks to all the speakers who committed to present something during the conference, and thanks to the program committee who selected and sorted all the submissions. Thanks to the 200 persons who registered for the conference and all the enthusiasm shared around the WikidataCon!

Note: the event is now complete, no more tickets available. The last tickets have been attributed to the first persons who registered on the waitlist. If some more seats get free because another attendee cancels participation, the next person on the waitlist will be informed.

If you have any question, feel free to reach me. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Importing locations from OpenStreetMap

Has somebody already checked/discussed is it legal and desirable to import coordinates from OpenStretMap to Wikidata? Wikidata:OpenStreetMap is not mentioning anything on this topic, but Wikidata:Coordinates tracking recommends importing coordinates from Wikipedias and English Wikipedia explicitly encourages to use locations from OSM in articles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#OpenStreetMap).

Some discussion of situation is present at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_Wikipedia#Importing_geodata_to_Wikipedia Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, we are entering into a legal minefield here. OSM is licensed under the Open Database License (Q1224853) 1.0 license and you can extract or derive insubstantial portions of the OSM database without needing to relicense the extract/derivation under the same license (see the Substantial guidelines of the OSM Foundation. Take note that while you extracting 1 or a few coordinates and putting it into Wikidata is most definitely insubstantial, if too many people do the same thing and they all end up in the same database (Wikidata), it is no longer insubstantial and therefore has to be licensed under the ODbL, which violates the CC0 license of Wikidata. So, my safe answer (IANAL) is that you can't import coordinates from OSM into Wikidata. (I am both a Wikidata and OSM contributor.) —seav (talk) 03:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
ODbL has a simplified overview. You are free to:
  • Share: To copy, distribute and use the database.
  • Create: To produce works from the database.
  • Adapt: To modify, transform and build upon the database.
As long as you:
  • Attribute: You must attribute any public use of the database, or works produced from the database, in the manner specified in the ODbL. For any use or redistribution of the database, or works produced from it, you must make clear to others the license of the database and keep intact any notices on the original database.
  • Share-Alike: If you publicly use any adapted version of this database, or works produced from an adapted database, you must also offer that adapted database under the ODbL.
  • Keep open: If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures.
Our data have no restrictions--they are CC-0 due to the particularities of databases. We don't have any restrictions on our data but OSM do, so we can't import their data en masse until one of us changes our license. (Tho, they can import our data freely.) Unfortunately, this is a really screwed-up side effect of unique database rights. If this were any other WMF project, this wouldn't be an issue. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Seav: Can I copy your explanation to Wikidata:OpenStreetMap? It would be nice to have it documented rather than hidden in discussion of project Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny:, sure. —seav (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Added to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:OpenStreetMap#Coordinates_in_Wikidata Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Manual of Style question regarding Chief Minister (Q1670755)

Hello,

I have a question regarding Wikidata pages. Basically Chief Minister (Q1670755) is a Wikidata item that exists already for "Chief Minister". But when discussing Chief Ministers of different entities, the format is different for each one. For example -

There's so many different formats here that having one decided will be good. Can someone suggest one format to change the others to?

Cheers, Soni (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

14th Annual Conference on Open Repositories 2019 Hamburg, 3rd - 6th June 2019

Uni Hamburg--Oursana (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

LinkedIn company profiles

We have LinkedIn personal profile URL (P2035), but no equivalent for company profiles on LinkedIn, like https://www.linkedin.com/company/kc-tmo. Various kludges are used to hold such URLs, with little consistency.

Should we:

  • modify the existing property, to be simply "LinkedIn profile URL"
  • create a companion "LinkedIn company profile URL" property
  • create an external-ID type property?

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer to have two external-ID properties. One for companies and one for persons. ChristianKl (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Two external ID properties are not an option: we have a URL property for LinkedIn profiles for a reason - that being that there is no single pattern from which we could extract a formatter URL. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Before we can make progeress on this, we need more views. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I just ran into this, with several companies that I found LinkedIn pages for. I suggest creating a new property proposal as an external ID for companies on LinkedIn, and leave the personal profile URL property alone. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata Missing Pictures (offline)

Traveling without Internet?

Still want to know what nearby Wikidata items need an image (P18)?

Download this KMZ into your GPS app!

Open source generator, developers welcome :-) Syced (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Syced: wouldn't work without modifications:
../database-of-embassies/tools/query-wikidata.sh d1g (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
d1g: Good catch! I added the dependency explanation to the README, thanks! Syced (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Week or month in year for periodic events

There is property day in year for periodic occurrence, but I cannot find any similar properties to represent weeks or months to indicate regular occurrences. Would they make logical properties to add? Pauljmackay (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment proper solution would be "duration" datatype instead of "week", "day" and similar properties. d1g (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Most or all days have separate items: May 5 (Q2550) July 4 (Q2698)
So question is if we need point in time (P585) for items.
I think usage of dates as items will expose complexity of date processing to end-users.
Or we should represent every "next .." "previous .." statement with date-items. d1g (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there any way to represent "1st Monday of September" currently? Pauljmackay (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a property for months.
    --- Jura 10:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't spotted that, have added it to day in year for periodic occurrence. Pauljmackay (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

New user script shows items in OSM relating to a Wikidata item

I have just become aware of the "Overpass" user script, which adds a map showing a feature tagged, in OpenStreetMap, with the ID of the current Wikidata item, if any. It's really useful, both for sanity-checking the tagging in OSM, but also for helping you to locate unfamiliar items, quickly. It's also good for noticing items which are not tagged in OSM, but probably should be; and I've just used it to fix some OSM features, like fast-food restaurants tagged "wikidata=Q38076" (that's McDonald's (Q38076)), when they should be tagged "brand:wikidata=Q38076".

It would be good to have this user script as a gadget.

Kudos to User:Mxn for providing the script. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

That script is awesome! Thanks for sharing. − Pintoch (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this script is great! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Why statues are events?

I wanted to use wikidata to check whatever given wikipedia article is about event. So battles like Battle of Grunwald (Q33570) should be categorized as events and statues like Statue of the dog Dżok (Q2480782) as not events.

I thought that proper check whatever something is an event (like Battle of Grunwald (Q33570)) is to check values of instance of (P31) - and follow all subclasses and check whatever one found occurrence (Q1190554) (event).

So Q33570 has instance of (P31) with value battle (Q178561) and battle (Q178561) is subclass of occurrence (Q1190554) - therefore Battle of Grunwald (Q33570) is an event.

But Statue of the dog Dżok (Q2480782) (statue, clearly not an event) has P31 Q179700 (statue, makes sense). Statue is subclass of Q1622217 (figurative art), (weird, I would say product of or something like that). Q1622217 is subclass of Q36649 (visual art) that is in turn subclass of Q735 (art), subclass of Q1914636 (activity) that is subclass of Q1190554 (event)!

What went wrong? I made mistake in how I check whatever something is an event? Statue should not be a subclass of Q1622217? Something else?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The subclass of (P279)  figurative art (Q1622217) statement was incorect and has been removed. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Mateusz Konieczny (talk)

Støen (Q39000000)

We now have Støen (Q39000000) about family name. --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How to connect parent (Q7566) and offspring (Q239526) etc. and others?

User:Paweł Ziemian User:Jura1 (is this project family relationships?) User:Infovarius User:Melderick User:Bvatant


Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Parenthood and others below.
There'd be some use of kinship item labels and properties for i18n on Commons, it would be fine to know there is a consensus on some scheme and it's stable. Thus some questions:

  1. Should parent (Q7566) and offspring (Q239526) etc. be connected with opposite of (P461)? Like parent (Q7566)opposite of (P461)  offspring (Q239526) and offspring (Q239526)opposite of (P461)  parent (Q7566)?
  2. Should this also be done for items with a gender betwethose of same gender? Like grandson (Q11921506)opposite of (P461)  grandfather (Q9238344)? (E.g. used by Tomáš Páv, 2016-01.) With qualifier criterion used (P1013): inverse function (Q191884)? (E.g. used by علاء الدين‎, 2016-08-22.) (BTW: Would raise single value constraint (Q19474404) either way.)
  3. Should brother (Q10861465) and sister (Q595094) etc. be connected with opposite of (P461)? Like brother (Q10861465)opposite of (P461)  sister (Q595094)? (Consensus?: e.g. used by 桂鷺淵, 2015-09, removed by Zolo, 2015-10-07, used again by Infovarius, 2015-10-09.)
  4. Should there be a qualifier with criterion used (P1013)?
    1. With gender binary (Q5530970) as value? Like brother (Q10861465)opposite of (P461)  sister (Q595094) / criterion used (P1013)gender binary (Q5530970)? (E.g. used by Robin van der Vliet, 2016-08-24.)
    2. Or with sex (Q290) as value? (E.g. used by علاء الدين‎, 2016-08-22.)
  5. stepfather (Q1282201)part of (P361)  stepparent (Q19822352) should be deleted I guess?

Thank you, --Marsupium (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If you like to make use of family relationship properties for specific persons, you should use "child" (Property:P40), "mother", "father", "sibling", "spouse", etc. If none of these applies or can't be directly derived from these (e.g. grandfather/grandmother), then use "relative". Relative would have a qualifier "kinship type" whose item value would have label that describes the relationship. This relationship should match the one found in the source of that statement. .. at least ideally.
--- Jura 09:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Those are general questions and arise also independently of the reuse on Commons. But if I want to process the Wikidata statement Pieter Pourbus (Q981558)child (P40)  Frans Pourbus the Elder (Q1445472) to an i18n version of "father of Frans Pourbus the Elder", I need to get from "child" to "father" somehow. I could use inverse of (P1696) here, but I can't do that any more for relative (P1038) and type of kinship (P1039). --Marsupium (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
parent (Q7566)opposite of (P461)  offspring (Q239526) and offspring (Q239526)opposite of (P461)  parent (Q7566) (criterion used (P1013)  causality (Q179289)) --Fractaler (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
To me grand parent feels more like the opposite of grand-child than brother the opposite of sister, but actually we could more accurately describe it as the date of official opening (P1619) (maybe we should have the equivalent of this property, but with item datatype ?).
I am not really clear how we could make use of this property in commons:Template:Kinship. I would think we have to hardcode every relationship like: if if (grand-parent and female) then label = grandmother end--Zolo (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
You then have to remember that we in some languages (like sv) do not have a word for "grandmother". We have one for "grandmother on the mothers side": "mormor" and another for "grandmother on the fathers side": "farmor". We have the same problem with "aunt", "uncle", "niece" etc. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • At some point, we attempted to do an abstract mapping of relationship items, e.g. here. inverse of (P1696) should generally work for your approach, but there are cases where it's not 1-1 and not necessarily identical in every languages. Even if we had a dedicated property, it's not guaranteed that the label gives you a good i18n version for the context. Some specific relationships might just read "relative" in other languages. It would be interesting to get this working. In general, it might not be needed for most uses: father (P22) should be on Q1445472 and could be used directly.
    --- Jura 10:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think kinship terms depend of relatively few parameters, but with quite a lot of different combinations that will not be the same for all languages.
Parameters that seem to have taken into accounts in some or all languages are:
  • sex or gender (P21)
  • the parent / child relation
  • date of birth (P569) (because the relative age of two people may matter, for example, Chinese routinely use a different term for older sister and younger sister)
  • spouse (P26) (that may need some subdivision, "spouse" is not the same as "concubine", and "in-wedlock" child might also be different from "illegitimate child")
You can combine that through multiple layer and get great-granddaughter of paternal great-grandfather's brother older than ego (though I am not sure many people actually use this kind of term). By way of subclasses, it is probably possible to model all that in Wikidata, but sounds a bit tricky. --Zolo (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zolo: Thank you! The work is still in its infancy, very basic functionality working. sex or gender (P21), date of birth (P569) waiting for implementation eventually … --Marsupium (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

How to batch-add property to items if the property is not filled yet?

I have a list of 200 Wikidata items with each an address/phone/URL/coordinates.

I want to add the address to the item if the item does not already have an address?

How to do that in batch?

It seems that QuickStatements1 does not have this feature, and I can't find any documentation for QuickStatements2. Thanks! Syced (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You can do this in QuickStatements, using P969. For example:

Q1234 [tab] P969 [tab] "1, High Street, Anytown, England At23 4TG"

Note that the quote marks are required for text values. If you wish to avoid adding addresses to the items that already have them, filter your list first, using some other tool, like Beacon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

(I'm also interested in this question.) Beacon? Can't find this tool. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/beacon.php Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett: While I often used QuickStatements1 to add properties, the important part of the question here is "if the item does not already have an address". BEACON's property list does not have located at street address (P969). But even if it had, are you suggesting I go through the result and search for my 200 QIDs one-by-one to see whether the property is set? Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting you use one of the various available tools to find a list of relevant items with an address, and cross-match that with your list, using something lie a spreadsheet app. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Links to redirects

I'd like to discuss the policy of leaving links to redirects in place. TLDR is I think this policy is outdated and needs to be modified, more expanded argument is here: Help talk:Redirects#Links to redirects. Please comment there! Laboramus (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Any wikibase:geoPrecision users?

Hi!

Is anybody around here uses or knows somebody who uses wikibase:geoPrecision value in Wikidata RDF data? I would like to hear how it is used and for what purposes. I am interested in users of specifically this data point (not coordinates in general, though if it is used together with some other values, I'd be happy to hear about it).

The background for this is that I suspect the way it is presented now is useless and should be changed. However, I do not want to start any work on it before hearing from people that might be using it (I am not sure whether such people exist, but if they do, I'd very much like to hear from them). So please respond here, or on my user page, or on wikidata list, if you know any real use cases.

Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't currently use it, but I assume it can be used to specify the initial zoom level for a map showing that coordinate. —seav (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF): Your link is to something I do not fully understand. But our templates on svwiki uses the information in the precision parameter in the globe-coordinate datatype, but only for how the data is displayed on the screen. It is not used for such things as zoom-levels. It is rather P31/P279 that is used for that. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I presume by "geoPrecision" you mean the third parameter of GlobeCoordinateValue as described at mw:Wikibase/DataModel#Geographic locations. This has been discussed in two Phabricator tasks, 89218 and 119346. It has also been discussed in at least two threads: Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2015/07#Coordinates precision and mw:Talk:Wikibase/DataModel#Lack of geographic shape data type causing trouble. There seems to be no consensus about what this parameter means. Some want it to be the precision taken from the source (assuming the source expressed precision in degrees or a fraction thereof), converted to decimal degrees if necessary. Others want it to be a decimal number with one significant digit, so if the leftmost uncertain digit in an angle expressed (and stored) in decimal degrees is the hundreths digit, the precision would be 0.01. Others want the precision to correspond to the size of the thing being described, rather than the precision to which the point was measured. All this discussion has just been left hanging with no resolution for years. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: I actually meant RDF representation of that value. As noted in discussion, having random numbers like 0.126454737464 as precisions does not seem to be very useful. So I wonder whether we can improve things there. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Mmmmm, we have used Småorter 2005 (Q25976776) as source here, and the precision in that document is 1 meter, and how much that is in degrees depends on where you are. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't read Swedish, so I don't know if the precision is really 1 meter, or if they simply report the raw results of their calculations to the nearest meter, without even trying to round to a number of significant digits that reflects the actual precision of the measurements. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: The source is in SWEREF 99TM without decimals. From what I can see, that is very close to 1 meter in most places. The smallest of these entities are 100x100 meters. I have not fully understood how and why Statistics Sweden has selected to pin these exact points. It is not based on a simple mid-point in these shape-files. It is possible that they have added the distribution of the population into the calculation. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@ Smalyshev (WMF): you wrote "So I wonder whether we can improve things there." I think we would need to find a place to discuss this. Once a meaning is agreed to, changes would have to be made to the general data model, the JSON data model, and the RDF data model, to explain the clarified meaning. Then, changes would have to be made to the user interface to reflect the new understanding. For example, if your approach is agreed to, and a user uses the user interface to enter 73°20'13"N, 19°12'15"E and accepts the default precision of 1 arcsecond, the precision shouldn't be stored as 0.00027777777777778 as it is today, instead it should be stored as 0.0003. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute Jc3s5h (talkcontribslogs) 0.0003 is far from an arcsecond?! What is the problem with 0.00027777777777778? I think our templates on svwiki looks for a something like a precison between 0.0002777 and 0.0002778 and interpret everything there as 1/3600. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I can offer arguments to support 0.0003 but I'm not willing to do so in this thread. I want a place to discuss this that has some prospect of accomplishing something before I spend time and effort finding citations and links to suitable sources. As for templates that will be broken, anybody who writes software relying on poorly written documents such as our data models is bound to get burned. We should fix the data model before even more software gets written that will later have to be rewritten. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: do you mean that 0.00027...7 and 0.00027...78 are cylindrical, not spherical? d1g (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
In Wikidata, and frequently in sources, the uncertainty of horizontal position is stated separately from the uncertainty in vertical position. Wikidata give a single value of uncertainty, measured in degrees, for both latitude and longitude. To a first approximation, one arcsecond of latitude will cover the same distance on the ground whether you're near the equator or one of the poles. But one arcsecond of longitude will cover the greatest distance at the equator (where it is about the same as an arcsecond of latitude). As you get closer and closer to one of the poles, the distance covered by the arcsecond of longitude becomes less and less until it becomes 0 at the pole.
So, roughly speaking, the area of uncertainty on the ground is similar to an ellipse, longer in the north-south direction than the east-west direction. If there were a modest change in elevation (a few hundred meters) the change in shape of the quasi-ellipse would be imperceptible. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: this calculator claims 111 km for Saint Petersburg - but this is huge. Is there any other variable other than "lat" and "datum"? d1g (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
That site requires input in decimal degrees. It infers the precision of the input based on how many digits are entered after the decimal point. In addition to the number of digits after the decimal, the main factor will be the latitude. If you round off to the nearest degree (60 for lat and 10 for long) you get 111 km for latitude error and 56 km for longitude error, which makes sense; a degree of longitude covers less ground at higher latitudes. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
aha, 1 meter with 5 zeros d1g (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we need another optional field for "rounding method" Rounding and decimal places d1g (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

... for every of "lat uncertainty" and "lon uncertainty"? d1g (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
... for "lat" and "lon" d1g (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Uncertainties may arise due to combinations of the following sources:

1) the extent of a locality 2) GPS accuracy 3) unknown datum 4) imprecision in distance measurements 5) imprecision in coordinate measurements 6) map scale 7) imprecision in direction measurements

Film Awards

Hope you'll get the idea. Can anybody advise me the best way to connect all of these (for example) directly and visa versa:

1. There is Moscow International Film Festival (Q749235) (film festival), which has a lot of awards, such as Golden George (Q38842580). Can I show them somehow on Moscow International Film Festival (Q749235) page?

2. Is it ok to use winner (P1346) on award's page to show all it's winners? Though it is not an contest and so on, it is award...

3. There is film Life as a Fatal Sexually Transmitted Disease (Q4180239) which won the Golden George (Q38842580) at the 22nd Moscow International Film Festival (Q4053344). How can I show at the film's page, that it got this award on this festival (not only the year), and how can I show on festival's page all the winners of all it's awards in this year? -Stolbovsky (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

For (1), I suggested has parts of the class (P2670). see Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Movies#Festivals_and_its_award.28s.29.
(2): this isn't done. Wikidata only includes awards on awardees. Wikidata:WikiProject_Award#Structure has a suggested approach. Academy Awards are said to be quite complete.
(3): following the Academy Awards sample, you could try statement is subject of (P805).
Try the Academy Awards example queries. If data is available, you could do a Listeria list on the page for a specific year.
--- Jura 08:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken WDFIST documentation

I attempted to follow https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WDFIST but any variation of proposed SPARQL query is not working. Even AROUND[625,39.907902,116.401703,15] example is not working and on testing gives errors - ("E0:ERROR: cannot parse SPARQL query AROUND[625,39.907902,116.401703,15]") see https://query.wikidata.org/#AROUND%5B625%2C39.907902%2C116.401703%2C15%5D

Any idea what went wrong?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's the old WDQ (Wikidata Query) syntax, which has been discontinued. The equivalent SPARQL is this:
SELECT ?item WHERE {
SERVICE wikibase:around {
      ?item wdt:P625 ?item_location .
      bd:serviceParam wikibase:center "Point(116.401703 39.907902)"^^geo:wktLiteral .
      bd:serviceParam wikibase:radius "15" .
}}
I don't have any experience with this Sparql function, so maybe it can be improved, someone else might know. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Also: Note that for some stupid reason, latitude and longitude are need to be switched in the query, so that longitude comes before latitude. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and thanks for fixing documentation! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Unable to add P17 value

I am trying to edit https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2617805?uselang=en-US P17 Property. I can use "add value" and write "Ukraine" there, but I am unable to save this edit.

In Browser Console of my 55.0.2 (64-bit) Firefox I see:

This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.position". load.php:28:950 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.widget". load.php:39:794 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.ui.core". Please use "mediawiki.ui.button" or "oojs-ui" instead. load.php:10:432 This page is using the deprecated ResourceLoader module "jquery.tipsy". load.php:542:171 Your skin is incompatible with VisualEditor. See <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Skin_requirements> for the requirements. load.php:448:666 Existing entitytermsforlanguagelistview DOM does not match configured languages load.php:746:914

I reset my preferences to defaults and removed modifications to my .js.

In https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q916281?uselang=en-US I am unable to even add P17 property itself...

Any idea what else I may try? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The language code en-US is not enabled for adding labels/descriptions in Wikidata, just "en" should suffice for most usecases. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Hm, I wonder whatever someone reported this bug somewhere (I never set it manually, "en-US" was added automatically at some point) 07:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Constraint vios: conflict with exeptions

On IMDb ID (P345) we have property constraint (P2302) = conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838) with instance of (P31) = married couple (Q3046146) etc. Then many exeptions are following with exception to constraint (P2303). Wouldn't it be more comfortable to add just one type of exeption, f. e. two people (Q15618652). Do anyone have an idea how to realise sth. like that? Queryzo (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I think that means you'd remove the constraint. Given the 500,000 uses of the property, the number of exceptions seems really small.
    Items for two persons often erroneously get imdb. At least, that's the impression I got at WikiProject Identical Twins.
    --- Jura 09:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Not allowed to add badges

Hi. I tried to add a badge of good article on the pt.wikivoyage article on the item São Leopoldo (Q688275), but the abuse filter didnt't allow me to do that. The promotion of the article to good was discussed here and the change was done by one of the sysops of that wiki. Could someone do it for me? Giovanni L. Zanchet (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. Why do not you guys use the Wikidata identificator in the listing template?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Should redirects (on respective language wikis) have their own Wikidata items?

Basically I was observing microeconomics (Q39072), which linked to the Hindi wikipedia article hi:सूक्ष्म_अर्थशास्त्र. However, this page was a redirect and linked to hi:व्यष्टि_अर्थशास्त्र, which was linked to the item no label (Q12453631).

I believe the correct way this should be handled is that no redirect pages (on respective language wikis) should have respective Wikidata items. Would that be a good way to handle things?

Soni (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

See Wikidata:Requests for comment/Allow the creation of links to redirects in Wikidata. There are more than one opinion about this. Many sitelinks to redirects are wrong here and should be removed. But some others are in my opinion very useful -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as I know we all wait for an outstanding statement by @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) and the developers on the outcome of the linked RfC. Redirects as sitelinks were refused by the software until now, but this might change. (A hack allowed us to add them nevertheless, and AFAIK in some cases page moves in Wikipedia left a redirect as sitelink as well. I posted a statistical overview of cases by project on the RfC page.) Depending on future changes, we might want so sort those redirects anyway. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think such a list already exists (a few bugs allow them to be created), but I'm not sure if people supporting redirects actually use it to clean up duplicates.
    --- Jura 09:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Jura Where can I find such a list? Or, how can I generate a similar list myself? Soni (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I would like to see redirect-sitelink in italic in the list of sitelinks in each item, like they already are in category-pages in each project. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: You can use User:Matěj Suchánek/checkSitelinks.js that add an icon near each sitelink for disambiguation and redirect. Probably is possible to modify to have it always active or to show icon automatically only when there ire some disambiguation/redirect --ValterVB (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding labels

When I want to edit labels, descriptions and aliases, I am allowed to do so in English, Czech, Russian and Slovak. What shall I do if I want to add a label in some other language? --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit your babel template on your user page. For just adding new languages without that: Lydia Pintscher "gave in" exactly one year ago, no development since then. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Sjoerd de Bruin: Well, I have German in my Babel box, the same level as Russian, but I still cannot edit German labels, although I can edit Russian ones. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets
"labelLister: Show and edit labels, descriptions and aliases from other languages."
d1g (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
d1g This option is ticked so the fault must be somewhere else. I still cannot edit German labels. --Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe I've seen a phabricator ticket about that before, but can't find it. Maybe Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) or Lea Lacroix (WMDE) will know if there's a ticket about this problem, otherwise a new one should be made. Mbch331 (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Sjoerd mentioned that one above. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested elevation reference from GeoNames

Hello! What do you suggest as reference for elevation above sea level (P2044) retrieved from GeoNames?

  1. reference URL + publisher + retrieved + imported from (if known)
  2. or something as stated in (P248) GeoNames (Q830106) + GeoNames ID (P1566) number

I think about the first, but today I've discovered the second somewhere. Thanks! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The second is prefered, according to Help:Sources#Databases. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought there were some concerns about using elevation values from Geonames.
    --- Jura 11:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
We should import at least SRTM or other better sources
https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/gis/elevation.html
http://www.ppgis.net/resources/dem-sources/
d1g (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
OK. Knowing that GeoNames provides multiple sources (as SRTM, etc.) how to specify the precise source (e.g. SRTM)? How do you consider this example? --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 12:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
SRTM is here, not in GeoNames
Decide version of SRTM and create a separate item: Help:Sources#Databases
SRTM is not a product of GeoNames. d1g (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
What do you want to say? (I know that SRTM and GTOP30 etc. are not "GeoNames products". But a lot of Wikidata elements are associated to a GeoNames ID and it's so simple to get the SRTM retrieving it from GeoNames (GeoNames says for most entries the source of the elevation, as SRTM, GTOP30, etc.).) --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Who knows version used in GeoNames?
Is it SRTM version 4? Create a separate item, don't use Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (Q965136) d1g (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
IIRC that bot which creates the articles on Cebuano Wikipedia does use the SRTM data if there is no elevation stated in geonames - but it leads to patent nonsense when the coordinates are not 100% correct, especially for monadnock (Q1139493) hills. See e.g. Khao Phang (Q31609744), 217m as by bot vs. 638m as found on geological map. Should we set the elevation values from ceb/geonames/SRTM all in deprecated state with a reason for deprecation (P2241) to something like "unverified" to avoid our database be filled with nonsense? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

How to create a proposal for a business  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mdleleni (talk • contribs) at 20:45, 10 September 2017‎ (UTC).

@Mdleleni : Do you mean an item about a particular business, or a proposal for a property about businesses in general? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Draft strategy direction. Version #2

In 2017, we initiated a broad discussion to form a strategic direction that will unite and inspire Wikimedians. This direction will be the foundation on which we will build clear plans and set priorities. More than 80 communities and groups discussed and gave feedback[strategy 1][strategy 2][strategy 3]. We researched readers and consulted more than 150 experts[strategy 4]. We looked at future trends that will affect our mission, and gathered feedback from partners and donors.

A group of community volunteers and representatives from the strategy team synthesized this feedback into an early version of the strategic direction that the broader movement can review and discuss.

The second version of the direction is ready. Again, please read, share, and discuss on the talk page on Meta. Based on your feedback, the drafting group will refine and finalize the direction.

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

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Unable to follow Wikidata:Babel

It is a redirect that is not linking anywhere and I have no idea how it should be fixed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should it link to Wikidata:Userboxes#Babel? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Significant change: Snak hashes in API and HTML output formats

Hi all!

This is an announcement for a significant change to the Wikibase entity format, which went live the beginning of September. It potentially affects clients that process snaks.

Internally, Wikibase assigns a hash to each snak (which is just the hash function (Q183427) of an internal representation of the snak). Those hashes were previously emitted for snaks that appeared in qualifiers, but not for the main snak or reference snaks of a statement. With the change, the hashes are emitted for all snaks, regardless of where they appear. This means that a snak can now look like this:

{
    "snaktype": "value",
    "property": "P370",
    "hash": "682fdb448ef68669a1b728a5076836da9ac3ffae",
    "datavalue": {
        "value": "some text",
        "type": "string"
    },
    "datatype": "string"
}

The hashes are also added to the HTML output, as an additional class similar to the statement ID class on statements:

<div class="wikibase-statementview wikibase-statement-Q4115189$29acf9c6-450a-7612-d206-049f5fe58328">
  <!-- … -->
  <div class="wikibase-statementview-mainsnak">
    <div class="wikibase-snakview wikibase-snakview-682fdb448ef68669a1b728a5076836da9ac3ffae">
      <!-- … -->
    </div>
  </div>
</div>

The ultimate goal of this is to make any snak addressable in the DOM, which is necessary for checking constraints on qualifiers and references (T168532).

It should be noted that unlike statement IDs, snak hashes are not identifiers. They are not stable, and may change at any time with the internal format.

Relevant tickets:

Relevant patches:

Please let us know if you have any comments or objections. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #277

Wikidata description editing in the Wikipedia Android app

Wikidata description editing is a feature being rolled out on the Wikipedia app for Android. While this primarily impacts Wikidata, the change also addresses a concern about the mobile versions of Wikipedia. Now the mobile users will be able to directly edit the descriptions shown under the title of the page and in the search results from the Wikipedia app. We began by rolling out this feature months ago to a pilot group of Wikipedias in the beginning (Russian, Hebrew, and Catalan), then to all the others, and have seen very positive results including numerous quality contributions in the form of new and updated descriptions, and a low rate of vandalism. We are now ready for the last phase of rolling out this editing feature, which is to enable it for English in a few weeks.

As always, if you have any concerns, please reach out to us on wiki at the talk page for this project or by email at reading@wikimedia.org. Thanks!

Elitre (WMF) (talk) on behalf of DBrant (WMF), 13:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Hey there Marsupium, do you mean that, in the page you linked to, you would like to see only "edit summaries" which are problematic for any reasons? --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 13:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I mean many of them are problematic and perhaps the Android app should display something (link to the guidlines/a short version) that advices the Android app users how to create descriptions that are not problematic. --Marsupium (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Marsupium: You seem satisfied, but I just captured and added some more "guidance" screenshots at the bottom of this ticket, if you're curious Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Elitre (WMF): Can you confirm whether the anti-vandalism volunteers on en-wiki are aware of this change? And are they confident they will be able to police it ? Jheald (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    This change has been communicated at the English Wikipedia as well. Note that it still impacts Wikidata though. We could certainly extend an invitation to the Counter-Vandalism Unit when the change actually happens, but maybe Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism would be a more appropriate place (I chose this more general village pump hoping it would suffice, just like for the rollouts to the other languages). Members of the team behind the change also keep a close eye and occasionally help out, as detailed at mw:Wikimedia_Apps/Short_descriptions/Research. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi - I am an en-WP editor, and this is not acceptable. The description field needs to come out of the apps, just like it came out of the mobile view. This is unbelievable to me, after the RfC we had last March. Jytdog (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
When you say that it is not acceptable, you are right. It matters little what a single Wikipedia has an RfC about. What matters more is that there is agreement that the automated descriptions offer a much better result. Now if that what your RfC asks for, it becomes interesting. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes?

We all know that vandalism on Wikidata is a serious problem. Whereas we have some means to detect and revert vandalism, it still typically takes some time, sometimes hours and days, until it resides even in the most commonly used items. In particular, this (along with the absence of sources) prevents more broad usage of Wikidata directly on the projects. For example, in every discussion of the topic in the English Wikipedia typically a dozen or so established users show up expressing a viewpoint that Wikidata is unrelaible, which typically stops the discussion.

I looked today at Q801 which is, now surpsingly, vandalism prone. If the data from this item were imported directly to the projects, that would just facilitate propagation of vandalism, which would stay for hours there in highly visible articles. On the other hand, vandalism is not very frequent, and the semi-protection probably should not be applied to the item (semi-protection, for example, would also cut off moves on smaller projects from Wikidata, since the movers are typically not Wikidata-autoconfirmed).

I am not sure whether this has been discussed before, and I am not sure whether this is at all feasible, but if we would have pending changes mechanism, for instance similar to that of the English Wikipedia, when the changes by not-Wikidata-autocongirmed users go live (and are shown on the projects if they are used) only after being accepted by established users (either autoconfirmed, or we can make a new flag, which would be easy to get), it could solve this vandalism problem. These pending changes must be a rare exception rather than a norm, because otherwise we would not have capacity to deal with them, but at least it would address the problem.

What do others think about it?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if pending changes is the best solution here, but we should start to test our options, because vandalism in Wikidata is worrying (hard to detect, stays long time, affects many wikis). Yesterday, there were 1,969 edits by anonymous editors. Can we approve that number of changes with current community? We could try. --Emijrp (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
To my opinion language barriers are a major reason why this could be complicated, in spite of a relatively low number of edits. A couple of months ago I tried to patrol all edits by not-autoconfirmed users on German labels, descriptions, and aliases over a prolonged time, but I stopped doing so because there was barely any severe vandalism to revert. However, I can’t patrol edits in most other languages, and whether there are enough active editors for all the languages to do that is beyond my knowledge.
Maybe we should advertise (again) which tools are available to filter the edit stream to review potentially malicious edits. Unfortunately, effective filtering can’t be done with the regular Wikidata web frontend itself, thus we need to rely on tools. There is also Wikidata:WikiProject Counter-Vandalism which could receive more attention. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I do not think we can patrol 1969 edits in real time, but possibly only a small fraction need to be patrolled - those in the items corresponding to most visible Wikipedia artiles, or those which are used directly in the projects, or by some other definition. The language issues are a real problem, but in my prespective they are facilitated by introduction of pending changes. For example, if I see an edit in Persian, I just do not accept it and leave it in the queue until a Persian speaker shows up. Of course there could be vandalism in languages we reasonably can not expect reviewers in, but if I see a strange edit in say Hausa or Kalaallisut from an IP it is most likely vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
True that Wikidata needs editors in infrequent languages.
Mistakes or copying of vandalism without precise review is not specific to Wikidata.
Solution is to expose at least part of data from Wikidata, so that readers could help with mistakes.
Or at least remove incorrect statements - this is much easier.
No project with open edit functionality can guarantee absence of mistakes. d1g (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Previous discussion: Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2014/09#Proposal:_enable_FlaggedRevs_on_wikidata--GZWDer (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, just to make it clear that pending changes is not the same thing as flagged revisions, and I would be at this point definitely against flagged revisions, I believe we as community have no capacity of handling them.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Please note that the software needs to be adjusted to work together with Wikibase. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there any antivandalism bot running in Wikidata? Is anyone interested in developing one? I have some experience in antivandalism bots for Wikipedias, but Wikidata is a new territory. We could create a repository, and if a regular antivandalism bot isn't possible, some single-purpose scripts for blatant vandalism could help. Emijrp (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes Amir (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
One thing which could or would be useful is that local wikipedias could define per article basis which property changes would be visible in watchlist or in recent changes list. In practice this could implemented so that the infobox (or any other template) could flag which properties should be tracked. Most likely those important properties are those which values are visible in the article. --Zache (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO pending changes is a wrong approach to a very valid problem. Vandalism is serious concern and we should tackle it but using a blind system only stops the instant gratification and damages more in long-term. Fighting vandalism needs to be more targeted and I have been working on it for a very long time. We have an anti-vandalism bot that reverts edits, we have tools like this that tracks deleted sitelinks or this one for changed descriptions. Also we are using ORES to let fast checks happen in Wikidata. For example this is useful when you haven't enabled new RC filters and if you have this is useful. I know it's not enough and I would welcome any feedback on making those better but let's move at this direction instead. Amir (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup:, you are right, but let me clarify my point. Currently, all Wikidata vandalism goes life. If a vandal comes, the results are visible immediately. This is by itself is not such a big problem, since people normally do not read Wikidata, but becomes a problem if vandalized data is directly shown on Wikipedia, which is widely read. All means you mention take time. Anti-vandal bots are reasonably fast; all logs are great but get handled on a scale of a day. Realistically, we will never have a capacity to ensure that vandalism is reverted within minutes with probability say 90%. It will always be hours or days. Therefore we need some means to not let vandal edits go live. I only know three of them: page protection, pending changes, and flagged revisions. I argued above why I would be against flagged revisions; page protection is installed on some of the pages most vulnerable to vandalism, however, in the situation when we have a lot of good-faith non-autoconfirmed users (basically everybody who edits on the projects and not here) we can not protect every page. I just do not see how we can handle the issue otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
roughly 2000 edits per day to review doesn't seem like that many - perhaps we could organize/recruit more people into anti-vandalism to do better on this? I have occasionally done some vandal reversion but it's not what I mostly spend my time on here, partly because the tools seem hard to use. Perhaps if we had some way for people to commit to watch recent changes suitably filtered we could get enough that it wouldn't be a big burden on any one person? If we can get 200 people involved, that's 10 per day they might need to patrol which doesn't seem like too much? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I was watching many pages that were vandalized frequently, but I then gave up because it's impossible to follow all pages on your watchlist as it's getting full of edits made using widar and other automated tools, like mass-adding descriptions, which should be allowed only for bot accounts, not for normal users, so filtering them out would be easy, but that's just my opinion. Stryn (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Images of an artist's representative work

This is not OK. Is it? Should these edits be reverted on a regular basis? Strakhov (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not OK I think. See also Wikidata:Property proposal/image of representative work for a related discussion. --Marsupium (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not ok. For example on the Finnish Wikipedia the infoboxes are filled by data from Wikidata, and we don't want to see in person articles some paintings, but a photo of a person. Stryn (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your answers. I'll undo them, then. Strakhov (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for causing this problem, I've basically been harvesting infoboxes on plWikipedia using Harvest Templates tool. While doing it, I checked the P18 property descriptions in several languages that I more or less understand (Polish, English, German, French) and I haven't noticed any specific rule or indication, that only portraits should be used for people. But obviously, having now realised the problem this may be causing, I won't harvest P18 any more. Sorry again! (CC: @Jura1:). Powerek38 (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
No problem. There are infoboxes and infoboxes. For example, images in... Template:Infobox dam... are probably most of them OK enough. who is free from sin who throws the first stone. I won't. :) I just needed to know the current consensous on this matter. Strakhov (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I left a note on the user's talk page and asked them to use WDFIST for images.
    --- Jura 09:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
yes, i note some language wikipedias use representative works in the artist infobox, giving a false positive in the "no local image but image at wikidata" task. will need some global cleanup. (and a lot of artists lack an image). Slowking4 (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

How to tell a machine what an uncle (Q76557) is?

How to indicate that an uncle (Q76557) (of someone) is a brother (Q10861465) of a parent (Q7566) (of someone)? (question applies to other types of relations as well; it arose here.) --Marsupium (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Level of indirection is 1 in Wikidata, you can achieve greater indirection using nameless items
< uncle (Q76557) View with Reasonator View with SQID > instance of (P31) View with SQID < brother (Q10861465) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
of (P642) View with SQID < item2 >
< item2 > instance of (P31) View with SQID < parent (Q7566) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
of (P642) View with SQID < human (Q5) View with Reasonator View with SQID >
d1g (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Actual properties can be different (not P31 and P642). d1g (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I would offer a couple of examples that depict the relationship. It is much easier and the machines can learn from the examples.
< uncle (Q76557) View with Reasonator View with SQID > example of relationship search < person1 >
with respect to search < person 2 >
--Micru (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Examples may be useful, but I would be surprised by program or database query processing examples Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Micru: Indeed I think it would be good to state it explicitly. Implicitly there are already plenty of examples that can be queried with Jura's query below. --Marsupium (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe with queries? I tried to add a SPARQL version to the item. It doesn't quite work, but this does. As Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921) was made for lists/categories, maybe one for kinship is needed.
--- Jura 10:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jura1: I didn't know about Wikidata SPARQL query equivalent (P3921). Great property! unfortunately it only helps humans and machines that understand SPARQL. For the query the recursive (because using uncle (Q76557) itself) one:
SELECT ?subject ?subjectLabel ?nieceOrNephewClass ?nieceOrNephewClassLabel ?uncle ?uncleLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?subject p:P1038 ?statement.
  ?nieceOrNephewClass wdt:P279*/wdt:P279* wd:Q76477.
  ?statement pq:P1039 ?nieceOrNephewClass.
  ?statement ps:P1038 ?uncle.
}
Try it! and in the other direction
SELECT ?subject ?subjectLabel ?uncleClass ?uncleClassLabel ?nieceOrNephew ?nieceOrNephewLabel WHERE {
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  ?subject p:P1038 ?statement.
  ?uncleClass wdt:P279*/wdt:P279* wd:Q76557.
  ?statement pq:P1039 ?uncleClass.
  ?statement ps:P1038 ?nieceOrNephew.
}
Try it! could be integrated. However, I think it should be possible to describe kinship types with some system of item datatype properties so that Wikidata:Property proposal/kinship equivalent isn't needed, but can be derived. --Marsupium (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: Yes, I the properties were what I had in mind to ask about … --Marsupium (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Marsupium: main property relative (P1038) and qualifier is type of kinship (P1039). d1g (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@D1gggg: ? On a P31:Q5 item, of course. This doesn't help anything to describe the item uncle (Q76557), does it? Above you've used instance of (P31) and of (P642) and said "Actual properties can be different" and indeed I think instance of (P31) and of (P642) don't suit here just as little as relative (P1038) and type of kinship (P1039). Am I wrong? --Marsupium (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Marsupium: we can create "person in question" or use character that may be fictional (Q21070598)
In western counties relations are constant.
commons:File:CousinTree.svg d1g (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Q29581753

This item is shown directly in the English Wikipedia, en:Povl Riis. It was pointed out (in an overheated discussion, but this is irrelevant for my question) that it is shown incorrectly. Indeed, it is a part of the series (P:179, Q29411209) which is now called Wellcome Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine, but at the time this particular article was produced it was still called Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth Century Medicine. Q29411209 shows both names with apparently correct qualifiers. The new name shows in Wikipedia whereas the old one should. Does anybody know how to fix it? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be a frequent problem surfacing in one way or the other. Depending the field, people create several items, repeat information with qualifiers, add named as (P1810) or make the retrieval code more complex.
--- Jura 11:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I would be happy with a more complex retrieval, but I have no idea how it could be realized.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hide description and alias edits in my watchlist for some languages

Is there a way to hide description and alias edits in my watchlist for a list of languages? Right now, 99% of edits in my watchlist are description creation in arabic through Quickstatement. I don't understand this language so I can't review them, I can't hide them because user is not a bot and more important, I can't distinguish other edits which may need review... — Ayack (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I think users should get bot flag when they perform such actions. d1g (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
One of the goals of the new filters for edit review (that'll be rolling out to watchlists soon) is to include a way to filter for users. But I do agree that people who do these kind of actions should get a bot/flood flag. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Add User:Yair rand/DiffLists.js to your Special:MyPage/common.js and use -ar in the description field. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Sadly we don't have a policy which says that users making continuous edits using automatic tools should request a bot flag. So everyone can continue as of now, as long as their contributions are not counted as flooding. Stryn (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of properties - Where to discuss

Where can I discuss specific use of properties? Breg Pmt (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pmt: Here, or at the properties' talk pages (depends on what you want to discuss, I guess). Jon Harald Søby (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Pmt (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How to get Local Name instead of Label on Wikidata Query

Hello , I am newbie on Wikidata. Recently I was attend Wikidata Workshop at Chandigarh where Asaf was teached us Wikidata Query. On basis that I make new Query For retrieve Indian Person Which born after 1921 and whos article present on Hindi Wiki. Here is:

SELECT ?itemLabel ?bornLabel 
WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5 .
  ?item wdt:P27 wd:Q668.
  ?item wdt:P569 ?born .
  FILTER EXISTS { ?wen schema:about ?item . ?wen schema:inLanguage "hi" }
  FILTER (?born >= "1921-01-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime) .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "hi". }
}
ORDER BY ASC(?born)

Try it!

But in this Query have a problem that Some of article have different name from Label. So when I use this in AWB for adding Birth Year. Most of page be skip. So I want to know that Is this possible to get Local name of article instead of Wikidata Label. Thanks --Jayprakash12345 (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Change FILTER EXISTS { ?wen schema:about ?item . ?wen schema:inLanguage "hi" } to ?article schema:about ?item; schema:isPartOf <https://hi.wikipedia.org/>; schema:name ?title ., the relevant variable is ?title.
In the future, you can visit our dedicated page for questions on queries. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Matěj Suchánek Thanks Sir--Jayprakash12345 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to have property with massive amount of values?

Property:P398 in Q525 currently has limited number of values but it may easily grow into millions. If I understand Wikidata:Notability right, then there is nothing stopping anybody to generate millions of wikidata entries for asteroids and adding them as values.

It would make entry for sun nearly uneditable, it already lags on opening the page. Would it not be enough to add just parent astronomical body (Property:P397)? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

This is just one of the problems with reciprocal properties. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Any property with more than a thousand or so values (or any entity with more than a thousand statements) is going to cause trouble with the UI as things stand. We recently added tabular population (P4179) to push long datasets for population (P1082) values into Commons; something similar could be done here. Or, as noted, just relying on the property in the reverse direction seems fully sufficient to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Bots may convert such values into inverse claims, but we shouldn't prevent data entry if we have such properties. d1g (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that is why I am surprised that such property exists. Has somebody tried nominating similar properties for deletion? It seems that maintaining this property is a waste of time as sooner or later Sun or Q321 will be uneditable. Also, having reciprocal property means more required maintenance for little benefit (after all, any normal use will of Wikidata data will involve database querries) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The only similar-ish property nominated at PfD that I can find is P150 (contains administrative territorial entity), which was kept simply because it was being used by the French and Czech Wikipedias. Unfortunately, it looks like P398 has the same issue: It's being used directly on six different Wikipedias, according to the ExternalUse template. I don't suppose there's any good way around this? --Yair rand (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there any chance delete wikidata property with external use template or is it automatic no? I thought about checking how this data is used (and is it really used) but all wikis mentioned in external use are quite exotic. And this one will be worse than P150, given that Sun alone has thousands or maybe millions of potential wikidata entries (and galaxies are even worse). This is not happening with administrative divisions - there are more stars in Milky Way (200G-400G) than people in the entire history of humanity (around 108G). Probably it will end with somebody adding thousands of entries and then migrating data to equivalent of tabular population (P4179) :( Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
One option could be to change P398:"long list of minor planets" to P398:Athen-asteroids, Apollo-asteroids, Main Belt asteroids, Plutions, etc, listing classes of minor planets and comets instead of each member.
Another option could be to change the purpose of P398 a little, to notable child astronomical bodies. P800 already work that way. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Properties for literature

Hi... I found the properties for literature items here Wikidata:List of properties/Works#Literature but I have a question. Im looking to get my school to donate the metadata for their special collection. Most of the items in this collection are only at my school or in a few other places and include works from the 16th century and before. I dont see a property to add this kind of information. It would be a lot easier to get this metadata if it can be noted the work is found in X special collection. In most of the works I look to get the metadata for, it is the only way to locate the item. Is this possible or is there some kind of policy against it?Thelmadatter (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you had a look atWikidata:WikiProject Books? Also to note that we do have collection (P195)  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Quite new to all of this. Didnt know there were Wikiprojects and the list of properties there is quite a bit more extensive. Thanks!Thelmadatter (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Can’t undo a redirect creation — anyone able to help?

I created a redirect at no label (Q34836264) by mistake, and now I am unable to undo this. It says: Undo failed; Invalid content data; Return to Wikidata:Main Page. Anyone able to help? I’d like to restore this version by User:Romaine. Thanks, MisterSynergy (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Same here logged in and out. Sorry! --Marsupium (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I had the same problem trying to restore this. Got the same message, so definitely a new problem. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 03:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't do it either. I just created phab:T175887 for this. Mbch331 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I encountered a similar problem yesterday (see IRC log, messages mentioning Ortano), but rollback on the last edits worked, and after that I was able to restore the old version again. --TweetsFactsAndQueries (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this works. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I have the same problem with Acer floridanum (Q15287442). --Succu (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Madat Guliyev

Hello. Q39939331 and Q4151833 are same people. Can somebody merge them, please? --Drabdullayev17 (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drabullayev17: ✓ Done Jon Harald Søby (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Brighty of the Grand Canyon (Q4967842)

Brighty of the Grand Canyon is the title of a novel published in 1953 and of a film published in 1967 that is based on the novel. The English wikipedia has an article that covers both; apparently so far no other Wikipedia has an article about any of the two. And there is one wikidata object that refers to the mentioned article. It is instance of book, the English description solely refers to the novel, and it has some more claims about the book. But it also has the claims director and cast member, and the publication date is 1967. Any idea how to deal with this? Do we need three wikidata objects for this (one for the film, one for the novel, and one for the article in enwp), connected with the has part/part of properties? --Senechthon (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Jane023 (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree Pmt (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Done with novel and film, but I don't know what to write as description and instance of to the wikidata object for the article. --Senechthon (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks for your work. Jane023 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge undo broken?

I accidentally merged Ebberg (Q30792024), and now cannot restore the version before the merge - getting "Undo failed - Invalid content data". Is this a known bug? Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Rollback works (did so), and there are already two sections on this page. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisting of tinyurl

It has probably already been asked before, but could we unblacklist tinyurl outside of the main namespace ? This is really best path to query.wikidata.org queries. --Zolo (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It is blacklisted globally through WMF, so to utilise that you would need to add it to Mediawiki:Spam-whitelist then write filters to prevent/mitigate/moderate its use. It would seem better to have a means to have shortcuts that are internally controlled and incorruptible.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
has been (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T112715), but no progress whatsoever.--Jklamo (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes please! − Pintoch (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If the only reason to want to un-blacklist tinyURL is to allow us to link to query.wikidata.org queries, would it not be simpler if the Query service simply provided a different (un-blacklisted) stable URL for the results it generates? Wittylama (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This is what we have been asking for. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smalyshev (WMF): backend or frontend issue?  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
T44085 should solve it. I don't think I want to develop a parallel system to it, and WDQS setup as it is now is not particularly well-suited to it. I could use different system than tinyurl but I'm pretty sure they either are or would be banned for the same reason as tinyurl. So the real solution I think would be to get UrlShortener working. Smalyshev (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding statement/s to data item

"After the Paintings by George F. Watts" is a poem by Florence Earle Coates which is about a painter and two of his works—both of which are Wikidata items, along with the artist. What statement/s do I use to add the painter and his works to the WD poem item? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

inspired by (P941) is available. Jheald (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
main subject (P921) can be used in general, but you want something like depicts (P180), except "depicts" seems to be just for visual works. -- Fuzheado (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald, Fuzheado: Thank you both. I have opted to use main subject (P921). Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding a data item, the title of which is a redirect page to a work

I would like to add the poem "America" as a data item; however, at Wikisource, the title redirects to the work in which the poem is contained. How can the poem still be entered as a data item? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, just create it as a new data item. There's no requirement for an item here to be linked to any other Wikimedia project.
You could sitelink the new item to the redirect at wikisource if you wanted -- but this is somewhat controversial, such links are still the subject of discussion even after three years (and you have to work around blocks in the software to create them).
But so long as an item has real-world significance, feel free to create it, regardless of whether or not there's an article anywhere else. Jheald (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Items mentioned in a creative work

I've been discussing off-wiki with another user about how to enrich the Wikidata item of a poem by connecting it to other works or to named people that it mentions. In parallel, I'm looking at how to describe topics that are mentioned in a work when they are not the main subject (P921) of the work. For example, it might be a significant fact about a letter that it mentions a particular person or creative work, even though the work is not the topic of the letter. cites (P2860) seems to be a candidate for describing relations between works (e.g. a song about a painting), although it seems to be used in Wikidata in its academic and legal senses, not yet for poetry. Is there another property we should be using? Do we need one? I searched for "mentions" or "subject" in the non-grammatical sense. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"mentioned in" has been proposed at least five times, rejected every time (search the archives). Various similar but constricted properties include main subject (P921), characters (P674), and present in work (P1441). I think the consensus is that simple mentions don't merit inclusion. --Yair rand (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

SF Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS)

I want to import publicly available data from San Francisco about the city's Privately Owned Public Open Spaces (POPOS). This data includes name, address, date created, hours, and more. However, the dataset from the city is not always complete; i.e., "POPOS 1" may list "hours" as "9 to 5" but "POPOS 2" may list "hours" as blank -- an omission by the city staff.

Once it is imported to Wikidata, will users be able to manually fill in the hours that are missing from the city's data? Or is Wikidata only what is directly available from the source? Thanks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scottcarolsf (talk • contribs) at 22:53, 11 September 2017‎ (UTC).

  • What is the copyright status of this data? Is it maybe a work of a federal government? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The data is city government data, publicly available for anyone to download, from the city of San Francisco. Scottcarolsf (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • data is PD in US per w:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (assuming no creative expression in arrangement) -- and yes users will be able to edit the data, but they may have to have a reference. Slowking4 (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Slowking4 for the helpful info. Scottcarolsf (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Scottcarolsf: Is this the data set you were thinking of? [2] -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Fuzheado: Yes. As you can see, for example, the "Hours" section is not consistent and has some holes. Scottcarolsf (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
      • that is good, you have an online reference. you can archive at internet archive, and we can error correct here, and push back corrections to the database maintainer. Slowking4 (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Mass removing descriptions

How to mass remove descriptions from an item? no label (Q22260299) is not a disambiguation page. Gikü (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It is not now, but it formerly was. This is a way to do it. Strakhov (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Strakhov. Gikü (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There is also a gadget for this: MediaWiki:Gadget-dataDrainer.js; for whatever reason not included in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, but sysops and autopatrolled users can use it via Special:MyPage/common.js as in this edit. —MisterSynergy (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you MisterSynergy. This looks like a fun toy to have in the holster. Gikü (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Presumably QuickStatements 2 can also do it at scale. Jheald (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) --- Ahh, but maybe not straightforwardly the multitude of languages. Jheald (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion Jheald. Gikü (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for a bot to label locations as instance of disputed territory (Q15239622)

Hi,

I ran a query that tried to find all human settlement (Q486972) that have multiple country (P17) values (excluding any countries that are no longer existing). After that, I filtered out all locations that already were instances of disputed territory (Q15239622). that The result was about 2500 items. (See Query 1). Then I figured out which of these countries shared the most common borders with each other (See Query 2). According to me, most/all of those locations should be marked as instances of 'disputed territory'.

An easy subset to check will be for all instances of this where one of the countries is state with limited recognition (Q15634554) (see Query 3). This is a list of 700 items. If one of the countries is not recognised, then the location can be safely marked as 'disputed territory'. (See a list of countries in Query 4).

How can we get a bot to get the obvious ones of them marked?

Cheers, Soni (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you sort out areas that are located in two nations, without being truly disputed? Karesuando (Q137860) could be such a place, located at the Swedish/Finnish border. In this case we have one item about the Finnish village and one about the Swedish village, but I guess that is not always the case. Some areas could also be disputed, without having much noise about it, since such areas often are unpopulated, for example Hans Island (Q681389) at the Canada/Greenland border. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Innocent bystander, agreed with both the statements. Which is why some of those must be handled on a case by case basis. But there are some cases that can be handled by a bot without issues. For example, everything inside South Ossetia (Q23427) will need the 'disputed territory' label, since South Ossetia itself is an state with limited recognition (Q15634554). Similarly for every location inside Crimean Peninsula (Q7835), it is safe to say that it is disputed territory. I would like a bot to handle the bulk of these uncontentious cases, and then the rest can be examined (semi)-manually. Soni (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The level of "dispute" can also vary. Some tells Norway should be a part of Sweden, instead of being independent. But almost nobody takes such claims seriously. The status of Israel/Palestine have strong opinions on both sides, while the claims on Krim, Lugansk and South Ossetia are more or less only supported by pro-Russian minds. And even within the pro-Russians minds, the claims on Krim is probably stronger than those on Lugansk, the first even being written into Russian law. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is People's Republic of China (Q148) marked as state with limited recognition (Q15634554)

(Splitting into its own section, sorry for too many sections)

  • As a completely different sidenote, why is People's Republic of China (Q148) marked as state with limited recognition (Q15634554) (and no references)? I thought it would be more logical to not include that category since most countries do recognise China. If not, what is a good way to handle countries that are unrecognised by only a few other countries? Otherwise it will cause false alarm on a number of queries. (See Query 5 and Query 6 for a list).

Soni (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

States with limited recognition
@Soni: Q15634554 is « state with limited recognition : territory with de-facto sovereignty but lacking international acceptance ». People's Republic of China (Q148) is lacking the acceptance of 20 countries so it fits the definition, no? More or less (recognized is not exactly a binary concept). I don't really want to open this can of worms, so see en:List of states with limited recognition for more informations and references. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I removed it. If someone thinks he has a source that supports the claim, please add a reference. ChristianKl (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

BREAKING CHANGE: wbcheckconstraints API output format

Hi all!

This is an announcement for a breaking change to the output format of the WikibaseQualityConstraints constraint checking API, to go live on . It affects all clients that use the wbcheckconstraints API action. (We are not aware of any such clients apart from the checkConstraints gadget, which has been adapted.)

We are soon going to check constraints not just on the main snak of a statement, but also on qualifiers and references (T168532). However, the current API output format of the wbcheckconstraints API action cannot accommodate any other constraint check results. To resolve this issue, we are introducing a new, more flexible output format for the API, which can contain constraint check results on all kinds of snaks and also leaves room for future expansion (e. g. for T168626). The new format is based on the Wikibase JSON format, and documented (along with the old format) on mw:Wikibase/API#wbcheckconstraints.

If you use the wbcheckconstraints API action in your tools, the safest option is to make them support both output formats for the transitional period. It’s easy to determine which format the API returned, because the new format contains the fixed key "claims" on the second level, which will never happen in the old format. You can see an example of this for the checkConstraints gadget in change I99379a96cd, specifically the new extractResultsForStatement function.

The new API output format is already enabled on the Wikidata constraints test system. You can test your tools or other code there.

Relevant tickets:

Relevant patches:

Please let us know if you have any comments or objections. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

USACM panel on algorithmic transparency and accountability

today the USACM had a panel on algorithmic transparency and accountability. while wikidata is very open, you might find some of the accountability and explanation items actionable.

here are the principles:

  1. Awareness
  2. Access and redress
  3. Explanation
  4. Deep Provenance
  5. Auditibility
  6. Validation and testing.

Slowking4 (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Improvements coming soon to Recent Changes

Rc-beta-tour-welcome-ltr.gif

Hello

Sorry to use English. Please help translate to your language! Thank you.

In short: starting on 26 September, New Filters for Edit Review (now in Beta) will become standard on Recent Changes. They provide an array of new tools and an improved interface. If you prefer the current page you will be able to opt out. Learn more about the New Filters.

What is this feature again?

This feature improves Special:RecentChanges and Special:RecentChangesLinked (and soon, Special:Watchlist – see below).

Based on a new design, 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. They are not available on all wikis.

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

Concerning RecentChanges

Starting on 26 September, New Filters for Edit Review will become standard on Recent Changes. We have decided to do this release because of a long and successful Beta test phase, positive feedback from various users and positive user testing.

Some features will remain as Beta features and will be added later. Learn more about those different features.

If your community has specific concerns about this deployment or internal discussion, it can request to have the deployment to their wikis delayed to October 1, if they have sensible, consistent with the project, actionable, realistic feedback to oppose (at the development team's appreciation).

You will also be able to opt-out this change in your preferences.

Concerning Watchlists

Starting on September 19, the Beta feature will have a new option. Watchlists will have all filters available now on the Beta Recent Changes improvements.

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 19.

How to be ready

Please share this announcement!

Do you use Gadgets that change things on your RecentChanges or Watchlist pages, or have you customized them with scripts or CSS? You may have to make some changes to your configuration. Despite the fact that we have tried to take most cases into consideration, some configurations may break. The Beta phase is a great opportunity to have a look at local scripts and gadgets: some of them may be replaced by native features from the Beta feature.

Please ping me if you have questions.

On behalf of the Global Collaboration team, Trizek (WMF) 15:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

We have Isle of Man (Q9676) but not bounding boxes

4 floats (2 coordinates?) could be reused in queries like this one d1g (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The properties coordinates of northernmost point (P1332) ; coordinates of southernmost point (P1333) ; coordinates of easternmost point (P1334) ; coordinates of westernmost point (P1335) exist to record this, but it may have been hard to find the data to populate them.
At a country level there is often also a question of what to include -- just the mainland ? All the islands ? Overseas dependencies ? That may also add to why these properties are not very well populated. Jheald (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Subclasses of former entity (Q15893266)

I don't recall if this has been discussed in the past, but I would like to hear opinions about the creations of more specific subclasses of former entity (Q15893266). Today I came across former proto-state (Q39847223) (@Soni: ping to the creator of the new item), and I was wondering if it was really needed or if it could be more simple to just use end time (P582) or dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) as qualifiers of proto-state (Q23037160). Right now, I am leaning towards limiting those kind of items to cases where there is no much information, so when end time (P582)/dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) couldn't be used. A problem with that approach would be that some items would be using, for instance, state (Q7275) whereas others would be using historical country (Q3024240), so maybe uniformisation would be needed. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Please see thread above on why the item former proto-state (Q39847223) was created. Maybe it will be good to continue discussion on the same thread to discuss all similar entities.
I agree that there needs to be some sort of uniformisation in this entire "How to describe a nation/pseudo nation" process.
Soni (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Should Islamic State of Iraq (Q18206631) be listed as instance of historical country (Q3024240)

Hi,

I was just trying out a few queries when I noticed that there are 24 items under (some) subclass of country (Q6256), which have an end time, but are not listed as historical country (Q3024240). Most of these seem to be cases like Islamic State of Iraq (Q18206631), which are historical but also disputed. So my question is, should we add "former country" tag to it?

I was going to do it myself to all 24 of them, but had to confirm before making the changes.

Soni (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

P.S. This was the query I tried -

Soni (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to use state with limited recognition (Q15634554) or proto-state (Q23037160) with qualifier end time (P582). If you use former proto-state (Q39847223) or any other subclass of former entity (Q15893266) you only provide information about the situation today. This is very limited. People might want to know how the world was at a specific date in the past. If you only know that something stopped to exist but not the exact date, you can still use end time (P582) with unknown value. The problematic situation around former entity (Q15893266) and its subclasses were also discussed in scientific papers, see Q27036474. --Pasleim (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it's much better to use qualifier than to start instance of (P31) statements that start with "former". ChristianKl (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Access denied to database wikidatawiki

Hi, I tried to work wikidatawiki database, but get "Access denied for user '##'@'%' to database 'wikidatawiki'", how I can solve this? --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have a "_p" suffix, ie. wikidatawiki_p? Anyway, you need to have a database access. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so, I can access to database "enwiki" normally in Toolforge without "_p" suffix . --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a limit on inferences?

@D1gggg: This user's editing behaviour has brought to my attention a potential problem. He has been changing a lot of definitions of items based on personal interpretation of sources, such as here or here, where the source doesn't mention nor define the item. I think that if a primary source doesn't specifically support an statement (like in here), then a secondary source is needed (some study mentioning that such statement can be inferred from a given primary source). But then, it got even worse: Here he changed the definition of sport (Q349) from a subclass of activity (Q1914636) to a subclass of human behaviour (Q3769299). According to him, sport seems to be a human behaviour without any backing references other than his own inference process. I've tried to explain to him why that is not the case to no avail. For me (and all the sources I could find), sport being an activity not a behaviour is just common sense, but not for him. This way of defining concepts could become a huge problem over time, so what is the limit of personal interpretation? Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 02:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is nobody fault that you are woefully incompetent is social sciences.
Nobody should explain how criminal actions are "behaviour" too.
Distinction between purposeful actions and actions without will (Q364340) is difficult.
Or how they are "biological" "medical" processes as well.
@Andreasmperu: not able to source your edits, but blame me. Not a surprise. d1g (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I think @Andreasmperu: not able to perform splits himself?!
And because attitude of this person I should copy&paste oxford dictionary or wikitionary like a mad man:
The total income received from a given source.
Not a word about "money" or their equivalents at all.
Code of Hammurapi never used "money" "taxation" or "investment".
@Andreasmperu: "money" are unnecessary in definition of "revenue", true monetary systems were invented later.
And I noticed that @Andreasmperu: tends to make decisions solely based on languages he is able to speak.
I'm very doubtful what is actually stated in Code of Hammurapi based on 5 different translations.
I'm not sure if English is good (but French and possibly Russian) d1g (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not know where I am going wrong in this

I have submitted following query to find out list of Indian actresses. But I am not able to get any results. Kindly guide me where I am going wrong. Thanks in advance. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel 
WHERE 
{
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5.
  ?item wdt:P106 wd:Q33999.
  ?item wdt:P21 wd:Q6581072.
  ?item wdt:P495 wd:Q668.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
I got the answer. Thank you. I should have queried 'country of citizenship'. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Item/Property suggestion shortcut on Mac

Ctrl (left) and command (right) keys on a MacBook.

I have just learned that to get the suggestion for the item and property on a query window we have to type CTRL+Space. I am using a mac and unable to get that. Initially, I was getting the spotlight. I have disabled the shortcut to open Spotlight. Still, I am unable to get that suggestion. Any help or suggestion is appreciated. --Jnanaranjan sahu (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

My Apple Keyboard has a control/ctrl button. What computer are you using? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jnanaranjan sahu: - I think you are getting Control and Command mixed up. They are two different buttons. On the Mac keyboard, Command is the large button next to the space bar, which brings up Spotlight search. The Control button is two buttons over, to the left of Command. Press that and space, and it will activate suggestions/fill for Wikidata Query. -- Fuzheado (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: @Sjoerddebruin: thank you for the reply. I use an apple computer. I have tried to use that control key at the first, but it failed so like other shortcuts I assumed that the command key should be used. But finally, I want to say that neither control key + space or command key + space is working. Anything I have to disable enable or do something?--Jnanaranjan sahu (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about this, but for future reference: If you get spotlight when pressing ctrl-space on a Mac, that usually means that command-space is in use for keyboard layout switching and spotlight was therefor 'moved'. It's because command-space for keyboard switching predates the introduction of spotlight. TheDJ (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The best feedback is leave information about codes generated after each keypress: http://keycode.info/ Ctrl - 17; Spacebar - 32. What else should be supported? d1g (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@D1gggg: On my macbook control key gives 17 and space gives 32. But I have no idea why that suggestion function is not working.--Jnanaranjan sahu (talk) 06:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

h index and other bibliometric data

I have recently started to created wikidata item of scientists, and I looked around a lot here and there for bibliometric archives and service. There was one service offered by scopus that was very interactive, and offered a lot of information. yesterday it restricted the access to his interface unless you pay. Now you can't have the h-index graph, the list to citing document or a direct link to the information related to a journal and so on... one of the service that it offered was "plummetrics" that allows to see the overall impact of publication on other academic publications, but also wikipedia articles (yes!), maybe mendeley archive and other websites. Scimago is great for journal ranks but it's powered by scopus so one day I fear that all this information will be on sale...

Currently only a few websites offer decent feedback on these data. Researchgate ask you to enroll, academia ask you to pay for almost everything, ISI web of knowledge offers you some information but I don't think they give you directly the h index, google scholar create some profiles but can't be accessed everywhere in the world plus they are evil and they want your data... so in the end a free open access or open source or similar concept is not there, am I right? So I have a general question here. I have read that someone is make a campaign to make the bibliometric information "open"... but I can't find it anymore.

I can accept that you pay for a in-depth service that tells you if the article is cited an a major newspaper and who searched for your profile, but I am really pissed off that standard bibliometric information are so difficult to get for free.

I am writing here because I'd like to know what can wikidata do. In theory in a future we could make an item for all the articles and also all the citation inside such articles, and all the author profiles (with a good coordination they can become similar to other services) and make some interface that interact with wikidata information just showing the bibliometric ones, easy to update or to investigate. Will the wikiplatform be able one day to offer to every scientist a free service that with a coordinated effort might be comparable in quality to those of these private conglomerates? Will we maybe spin off the bibliometric part from wikidata to get further in that direction?

Is anyone working on it? All these items of scientists are not used to a full potential if we don't find a way to attract scientist and offering a good bibliometric service is a good key, IMHO.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Plus, the idea that private corporations basically control access to data that ca be used to evaluate research founded with public money is IMHO unacceptable. One day they'll offer you to buy visibility for your publication... if the future battle is quality, and that need reliable sources, we should really improve the quality of the bibliometric data we can offer to the general public and specifically to scientists.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

These links may be of interest: https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/ and a paper describing Scholia http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1878/article-03.pdf .YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I take a look, thx.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, ISI Web of Knowledge provides h-index directly.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
in any case not as easily as SCOPUS did with this interface. Some years we tried with a friend to get h index and it was not smooth (i did not check recently). BTW, SCOPUS still gives me a h index, but not a lot of other analyses related to the h index as in the past. It's important that the bibliometric data are not "property" of big conglomerates, or easy to access through them. One day they might ask you money to give visibility to your articles somehow. This initiative has potential to resonate with some manager I know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Who is in charge? Where is the project here? I should follow this closer. The people of Wikicite for example? Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Without google here in China I could find only the Lyon declaration is generic, I cannot find the other initiative about bibliometric data and related data mining. But I'm sure I read something specific about that... No clue?--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
In the lasts months we added a lot of new items for papers but most of them don't have cites (P2860) filled. cites (P2860) has a bit of an chicken&egg problem. If we would add a property that would allow adding the citation as a string we might encourage people who add new items about papers to also add citation information.
Currently, we unfortunately don't have enough cites (P2860) claims to do a meaningful index of our own. If we however would have enough information it would be nice to have a Wikidata-based index for the influence on a paper. Having an index that reflects the impact a paper has on other papers that are open enough to have their meta data inside Wikidata would be nice. It would also in turn create an incentives for more data to get submitted to Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
My network is not strong enough to make a difference, but if we are going in that direction on the long term I can share the news everywhere...--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Alexmar983:The decision about whether we allow more string based properties for storying citation data is a policy decision where I don't think it takes a strong network. My last proposal of a string property to make importing of data easier was rejected, so I won't start one here but if you think that having more citation data in Wikidata is very important you could. ChristianKl (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
ChristianKl I am not sure where this is supposed to take place here on wikiplatform, do we have a centralized project fro this aspect? In any case, my network was referring to inform people outside wiki about the overall situation, not to boost things here, at least not thanks to them. Personally, I still think that merging everything in wikidata is sometimes confusing and does not help in reaching a good rate of workflow, but at the same time "independent" project might not take off so I accept the situation. At this point however I fell that you start to cover bibliometric data very well or it does not make any real difference. A very incomplete archive, oran archive that does not grow to fill a gap has no future, I understand that wikidata was incomplete for years and that did not affect its reputation, but there was a clear workflow behind supporting its growth. I'd like to feel something like that (or to help to go like that) in this case too.--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

After two days SCOPUS put almost all its free "services" back... it looks only the link to plummetrics is now permanently removed, which is ok... I understand that combining bibliometric data with other sources is still a new thing, other services offer also social media monitoring (Clarivate analytics, maybe, does that) and that's precious metadata, I understand you sell me those. It's like when academia.edu promise you they 'll inform about the use of your articles on non-peer reviewed publication such as syllabi. Although, in the future, when the use of template improves on local wikipedia, we could maybe also provide a statistics about use of publications in wikipedia together with bibliometric data, but that's another story.

In any case, even if they changed their mind, in any moment these companies can make you suffer to get the basic data in a smooth way, that is a fact.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Q39936094

Is this item legit' ? (subpage of a project edit filter) ?

the 'old english' label makes me suspicious... --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

This happens when users on Wikipedia press "Add links" without JavaScript. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Living people

I have moved the draft BLP policy to Wikidata:Living people (draft) and created a new page at Wikidata:Living people, with a note about (and link to) the WMF's resolution on content about living people; a link to the aforesaid draft and to the RfC in which it was decided not to adopt the offered policy; and links to other WMF projects' polices.

Of course, the draft can still be worked on, and brought back to RfC for the community to approve or reject, when deemed appropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The basic problem has not been resolved and this cannot be found in this proposal. So it is imho a waste of time as it is pushing something that is not viable vis a vis our best practices. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
"This" is not a "proposal". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If it is not even a proposal, what is the point? It does not add anything at this time. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
why don't you incorporate into the draft the concerns raised before? i would strike the second paragraph, until proven necessary. Slowking4 (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Given that it is a waste of time I would remove this. It is pushing a point of view that is ill considered by someone who has all the time in the world because he made a career out of doing the "Wikimedia thing". I do not have the luxury of time for this. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: I hope you would "assume good faith". In fact what Andy did here (though it seems unnecessary to me, as the page already had a "DRAFT" notice) was to make the proposed LP policy page *less* conspicuous, to hide it a little, behind a more generic page that provides links on the status of LP policy in wikidata. If you read through the RFC that proposed to make an earlier version of that LP page a wikidata policy, Andy Mabbett was one of the first to vote *against* the proposal. So I think you are stating quite the opposite of the truth in claiming this is "pushing a point of view that is ill considered ...". Further, to respond to Slowking4, the proposed LP page (that is now labeled with (draft)) WAS edited after the RFC to try to reflect the concerns raised there. I won't urge people to spend their time on it if they don't have "the luxury of time" for it, but a few more points of view looking at it (and the history of edits) would probably be helpful. I think it is a reasonable policy as it stands right now. Feel free to add your thoughts on the talk page, or edit the draft if you see something obvious to change. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
i for one am weary of the constant "assume good faith" in response to negative feedback. i see little AGF in "repeated or egregrious incidents by a user may lead to blocks." it is the same old battleground gatekeeping, that has not and will not work. i see no mention of quality improvement of BLP data; apparently that is not a concern. but it's all good, let's engage in the rules-sclerosis that has brought editor decline to english. the grumblers can move on to more friendly wikis. Slowking4 (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
A policy that is unworkable is unreasonable. That has nothing to do with good faith. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM, Slowking4: I am trying to "assume good faith" on your parts here, but it sure looks like you did NOT read my reply. To be briefer: GerardM appeared to be accusing Andy Mabbett of "pushing" a policy, when in fact what Andy was trying to do was make it less visible, to hide it, not push it. That is the AGF issue I was pointing out. As to whether this proposed policy is "unworkable" or the warnings about penalties are unreasonable, both of you have previously commented on the talk page for the proposed policy, and yet neither of you have raised these specific issues there. That would be the place for a reasonable discussion and an attempt to come to consensus on this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Making accusations of no assumed good faith IS an hostile act. When Andy pulls a Pallas Athena by not addressing vital arguments put forward in a previous attempt to a policy, it is manipulation by bandwidth. My proposal is straight forward, delete this goddess and address the issues first. Then we have a way of dealing with BLP that is workable. Andy has this motto: "talk to me" .. it is hard to talk with him. He is available only when it fits him. Thanks GerardM (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@GerardM: "pulls a Pallas Athena"? "manipulation by bandwidth"? "Delete this goddess"? "address the issues first"? I really have no idea what you are talking about. If you think a page should be deleted, add the delete template to it. If you think issues should be addressed, how does one do that without expressing it via RFC or policy proposals or some other community consensus process? In any case, I don't think this is the place to discuss this further, but I'm happy to discuss with you in plain language on the talk page of the draft proposal or another appropriate place if you have something else in mind. ArthurPSmith (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
pallas athena as in autochthonic (i see classics are not your forte) - these are 2 disputatious editors; your intervening in their dispute is biased. if you really want civility enforcement, then you need to do it in an unbiased manner. i look forward to your NPOV application of civility. Slowking4 (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be amusing, were it not so troubling, to see people presuming to speak for my motivations without bothering to ask me what they are.

I was neither promoting nor hiding, nor indeed expressing any view whatsoever on, the draft policy. My aim was simply to give prominence to the WMF resolution, which does have current standing.

Furthermore, as I noted in my original post in this section, I was at pains to ensure that the draft policy remains easily accessible, by linking to it prominently from the original page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed the resolution at length and there is no reason to pull on a dead horse. As it is, it is completely unworkable and with the unrealistic Wikipedia attitude added prominence only muddles the waters. Only when we start to talk on how we can realistically improve quality including BLP quality will we make progress. As it is, Wikipedia has its own problems. Their current attempt at an RFC is only directed outward and makes demands on others while at the same time refusing to look at their own BLP performance. Together we can do better but this "daft" is only fanning the flames. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing, i appreciate your attempts to mediate here. however, notice how you were treated at the english drama board. from that discussion, i conclude, for them, it is not about a quality improvement process, but about maintaining power relationships about who controls content; it is not collaboration: it is dictation. seeking to import here, the same old adversive methods from english will not increase quality. the spectacle of reverting wikipedia data just because it was copied to wikidata and transcluded back would be funny, if it weren't so sad. rather let's talk about quality circles to improve wikidata, and a teahouse to respond to BLP issues, and drop the talk of blocks. you can already block editors for disruption. that is a policy i could support. Slowking4 (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope you are wrong, but fear you may be right. I'm not aware that I have been "talking about blocks", though. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
None of which appears to have anything to do with the edit I made. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

male

Is there any way that Q6581097 (male human gender) can be at the top of the list when I type in "male" instead of Q44148 (male organism)? 50% of all biographies must have the gender chosen, so it should appear first. There must be much fewer male organisms like a bull or a steer. I know that the human gender is a subcategory of male organism. Are they sorted by Q-number or by the number of times used? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever tried to edit in another language than English? I am not saying that we do not have this kind of problem in other languages, but I guess they are less problematic. "My" label for male organisme is "hane" and the label for male human is "man". I can accidently mix these two with other items, but never with each other. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The sorting there is indeed right now unfortunate because we have few criteria we can take into account for the scoring. Stas is currently working on moving this search to a different system that will be considerably more powerful. Then we can tweak things like this much better. This should happen within the next two months. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Q25513935

Swedish citizen + 18+ years old + sometime in the past lived in Sweden (Q25513935) what do you think about this item? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Community forums

In addition to on-wiki discussion pages, members of the Wikidata community use a number of other forums, such as mailing lists, and Facebook groups. I have created Wikidata:Community forums to list these.

Please feel free to expand and translate it; and can someone add the relevant IRC channel(s)? And add a link to it, from Wikidata:Community portal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Military leader

I have chairperson (P488), officeholder (P1308) and corporate officer (P2828) available if I want to add the name of the commander of an Army. But first, is it ment that military formation should have a property who identifies the leader at a given time. And if so do anyone have any opinion what to use? Breg --Pmt (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Using commander of (P598) on the commander seems the best approach. I don't think there's a reciprocal property. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Andrew Gray: Thank you very much. I was not aware of that item. And then George A Richard (Q6766465) as commander of (P598) Chief of Staff of the Army and with Paul J. Selva (Q16776319) as corporate officer (P2828) (person who holds a specific position) as Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But I do suspect that commander of (P598) will be to narrow for the purpose of lower position in an army organization. Breg --Pmt (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

sorry I hink the above came out wrong. Breg Pmt (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
George A Richard (Q6766465) with position held (P39):Chief of Staff of the United States Army (Q783785) or Paul J. Selva (Q16776319):position held (P39):Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Q2916001) would be a better way to represent this - they hold those specific named positions. commander of (P598) is better for a generic commander of a specific unit - so Paul J. Selva (Q16776319):commander of (P598):United States Transportation Command (Q1499989). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Andrew Gray: Yes. So I may conclude. What is needed is the resiprocal of commander of (P598) like Commander. Any guess if that will survive a property proposal? If the proposal will not be done, most likely officeholder (P1308) have to be used. Breg Pmt (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Places a language is spoken in?

I notice that entities about languages generally don't contain any information about where the language is spoken. Is this by design? Wikipedia and Wiktionary both currently categorise languages by where they are spoken, so why isn't this included in Wikidata? CodeCat (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi CodeCat the only reason explaining why it is not included is because nobody did it (it has been done for Northern Sami (Q33947) for example). If Wikipedia already stores this king of information, it could probably be imported. Note that there are some questions about that. For example, where English is spoken? The same for French? Ethnologue gives an answer for that (see English). If you are interested by this topic, we could start a discussion on the WikiProject Languages. Pamputt (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. If we want to include it, we'd probably want to make some sort of distinction between native and second-language speakers. We may also want to include where a language is currently spoken versus where it was formerly spoken. I'm still pretty new to Wikidata so I'll let someone else assess how to best do this and let them create the appropriate properties. CodeCat (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
@CodeCat: Re native vs second-language speakers, this is usually indicated by the qualifier applies to part (P518) first language (Q36870) / second language (Q125421). Re currently vs formerly spoken, use qualifier point in time (P585) to show time period. --Yair rand (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Should be in Wikidata.
But I think number of speakers is each country is more useful: how many and where. d1g (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
We may not always have this information. For example, how many people spoke Gothic? We'll probably never even have an estimate of that. Wikipedia says it was spoken in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, France, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine at various times during its history. Of course we should include number of speakers if we have that information, but we should structure the data so that it's not required to know this and one can also say only that it was spoken in some place. CodeCat (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on disaster response and in this context interested in the reverse information — languages spoken in a given area — in order to facilitate choosing languages to work on/ contact translators about etc. in response to a given event. Having the "Places a language is spoken in" at hand would be very useful for that. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Sounds to me like we need a new property that means "native language of residents" (better label?) that attaches to a place and can be qualified with the number of speakers where known. - PKM (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to combine that with Yair Rand's suggestion to indicate nativeness and time spoken with qualifiers, though. Would this be a possible use case for the "some value" type to indicate that there is a value, but we don't know it? CodeCat (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@PKM: I agree that P17 and P131 are not intended for use in languages. --Infovarius (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Editathon at the Internet Archive

The Internet Archive holds an editathon next Saturday, September 23rd -- 10:30am to 5pm PT It will be at Internet Archive, 300 Funston San Francisco. It would be wonderful when Wikidata people find an opportunity to go.

Currently their Open Library data for authors links to Wikidata and VIAF. The publications, many of them are freely licensed or just free, typically have one or more references like ISBN-10 or a link to the Library of Congress. Their big challenge is to disambiguate and merge their data. Because of the available links to external sources this is largely a data job.

They are quite happy to share all their data with us. For us it is an opportunity because it is key of bringing the OL and IA content to our readers. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

radiation

The current entry for radiation (Q18335) describes it as "waves or particles propagating through space or through a medium, carrying energy". Here's the situation: Wikiversity description, "an action or process of throwing or sending out a traveling ray in a line, beam, or stream of small cross section" and Wiktionary definition, "The shooting forth of anything from a point or surface, like diverging rays of light". While Wikiversity and Wiktionary are in essential agreement, neither agrees with Q18335 which makes the word radiation synonymous with waves or particles. We've run into this before. Sometimes we go with specifics, which here might mean radiation is used as a synonym for waves or particles propagating and radiations is used for the action or process of throwing, sending or shooting anything. Thoughts? --Marshallsumter (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

(Speaking as a physics professor in real life). There are indeed two meanings of the world - radiation as electromagnetic waves (e.g. electromagnetic radiation or synchrotron radiation) for which the Wikidata definition is perfect, and radiation as process (A rasiates B, e.g. intensive radiation). I do not quite understand the definition of Wikiversity but Wiktionaty seems to me to describe the process. It could be of course situations when it is difficult to discriminate - for example, Cherenkov radiation are electromagnetic waves emitted by electrons moving faster than the speed of light - both process and object are important.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Art collections: inventory number (P217) with Qualifier collection (P195), or catalog code (P528) with Qualifier catalog (P972)

I have never used those properties, and the concept seems very similar. So which one to use for items about elements of art collections? Why so? Thanks for help, MisterSynergy (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

It is quite simple really. A catalogue in art terms, is a book written by an art historian and printed on paper, and a collection refers to a set of items (usually owned by an institution such as an art museum and assigned an inventory number, that may or may not be displayed for the items on show). See also this discussion: Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2017/Properties/1#inventory number (P217). Jane023 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I knew you were going to respond :-) Thanks a lot, very clear now after reading the property deletion request linked by you: inventory number (P217) with qualifier collection (P195) is what I am supposed to use in my project. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Good luck with your project! If you get stuck on how to model paintings, you can always look up a famous one. This one: The Night Watch (Q219831) has been moved from collection to collection and catalogued multiple times. Jane023 (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jane023: and @MisterSynergy: According to the above, is it then correct to put into inventory number (P217) The Night Watch (Q219831) as a Wikidata property example (P1855) like I have done? Breg --Pmt (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
No, in this case not. The painting is the property of the city of Amsterdam and is technically in both collections, though the location is in fact a purpose-built gallery, also located in Amsterdam within one of the two museums. An accession number is a different entity entirely and should not be used in this context at all. So to correct it, the second entry should be like the first. Such constructions are common in large national museums (e.g. Louvre or Tate). Jane023 (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jane023: By that you mean that there should be two entries one for Rjiksmuseum and one for Amsterdam museum, but with SA 7392 as inventory number (P217) or. Btw what is an accession number? If possible can you correct Wikidata property example (P1855) to indicate? Breg Pmt (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Done. Jane023 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jane023: Thank you very much. I am learning Face-smile.svg, and hoping that I am not aking to much about details. Just for the sake of good order. What is the diffence between Revisjon per 17. sep. 2017 kl. 10:07 and 17. sep. 2017 kl. 11:50‎? Except from the references. Breg Pmt (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed accession number (Q1417099). Jane023 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jane023: My apologies. I did not read your changes good enough. --Pmt (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany (Q660521)

I have added many properties and items in Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany (Q660521). I would like to have opinions on my editions. On this page or preferably on the items discussion page. Breg Pmt (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Teahouse-type page

I'm thinking that we should have a page, less intimidating, and less full of jargon, than this one, where newbies and infrequent contributors can ask basic questions and receive help. Something like en.Wikipedia's Teahouse.

Is anyone interested in helping to get that started? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

On Commons we have c:Commons:Help desk, connected to Project:Help desk (Q4026300), that serves that purpose. Wikidata already have a Wikidata:Help desk but it redirects here. That might be more easily recognized name for the page for questions from new users. --Jarekt (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that the other language versions of WD:PC (linked in the box above) serve that purpose pretty well—at least for non-English native speakers. I have no idea about the enwiki Teahouse, but I can remember that the dewiki counterpart wasn’t really successful. Not sure whether we need that, but open for more thoughts… Regards, —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I confirm the French Wikidata:Bistro mostly serves that purpose. If we create an English-speaking one, I vote to use Flow on it. − Pintoch (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Would we really want to use Flow?? It makes it a lot harder to follow the overall flow of discussions on a page. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I find Flow very well suited to pages like Wikidata:Bistro, where each discussion is mostly independent from the rest (they are unrelated requests for help or comments). So I am not sure what you mean by "overall flow". Your comment is certainly applicable to some pages, but I would say a Teahouse-like page is typically where it applies the least (IMHO). − Pintoch (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree, that it would be nice to use flow for such a page. ChristianKl (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
For myself, I think Flow makes it significantly harder to read through archives of a page -- which may be exactly what new visitors want, to see whether some of the questions they have may have already been answered. Jheald (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
One other point is that Flow is pretty much unknown on en-wiki, so if we are to reduce the cultural shift, a classic discussion page environment would be one less thing to have to worry about. Jheald (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Llywrch advocated the need for this quite strongly (diff), in the discussion at en:Wikipedia:Village Pump (Policy).
Wikidata does have quite a learning curve for people to climb; and this page is pretty busy with discussions that are often quite technical and pre-assume at least a working familiarity with Wikidata. I say let's give the teahouse a trial, it might work. I'd certainly add it to my watchlist. Jheald (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: - I also read that comment from User:Llywrch but was puzzled by the observations: "leaves me the impression it is the domain of techies talking to other techies." I don't find that at all. Further: "Also I know from experience techies can be very dismissive about newbies' questions." I also don't find that here either. I'd support something like the Teahouse if it's done well. But it shouldn't be done with the inaccurate declaration that this forum is "techie" or "dismissive." In fact, I find the collaborative mood here quite refreshing. -- Fuzheado (talk) 17:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
/delurk I made that observation based on two things. First, as an outsider who hasn't participated in discussions at all. In that statement I'm assuming my projection of aloofness from others is similar to any newbie to Wikidata, regardless of their status on another project. I recall one experienced & senior en.wikipedia editor venting furiously a few years back how she could not figure out how to change a value here which she knew was wrong. (Said editor has written a few FA articles, so she shouldn't have had that kind of bad experience.) The second, I have to admit, was based on my first few visits to this forum a little more than 2 years back: it was very much like the experience I've had poking my nose into a technical mailing list (such as one of the Open Stack mailing lists), where the discussions are not only arcane but often allude to other discussions off-list. (And the video that was intended to introduce Wikidata to newbies at the time was offline.) Obviously Project Chat has warmed up immensely since then, but unless one is a structured data nerd or has the time to spend learning the site thru trial-&-error, Wikidata is forbidding to outsiders. -- Llywrch (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
@Llywrch: - Thanks for your thoughts on this. I agree that there is not a great "one stop shop" for trying to grasp all that Wikidata entails for a newbie. (Though, to be fair, no such thing for Wikipedia exists either. But Wikidata tends to have more puzzling jargon and numbers, like Q numbers, properties, identifiers, constraints, and snak). The set of training materials is still immature and needs to grow more. I've created Wikidata:In one page for in-person training, which might be helpful as a road map. Also, I'm planning a podcast episode as an "Intro to Wikidata" so look for that soon. -- Fuzheado (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I think training materials and a help forum are, while each essential, very different. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
the teahouse was successful because it trained coaches, and was a welcoming space, more that the help desk. it will require continuing management and training. submit an idealab for some training money. it is not about more tl;dr help, or training materials, but the practice of listening and welcoming and responding. could also use for response to data issues by data subjects (i.e. like otrs). Slowking4 (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
We have the a little bit forgotten Wikidata:Lounge. --Succu (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
That seems to duplicate project chat rather than fulfilling the purpose I describe above. It's also a static page, with discussions on its talk page, which has no inbound links other than a single redirect. And from the edit history of the talk page (the most recent edits were two in June 2017; there in march 2017, then ten edits in February 2015, and nothing before since August 2014), it's not so much forgotten as unknown. Did you mean to suggest that it could be repurposed for use as a Teahouse equivalent? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'd run across the "Lounge" before I think via our "Community Portal" somehow, but there definitely don't seem to be any incoming links now. Anyway, I believe the original purpose was to be a friendlier place for anybody, including newbies. Looks like Micru started it? Anyway, it could be repurposed as a "Teahouse" in my opinion. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It may just be me, but I do prefer the word "Teahouse" to the word "Lounge". Jheald (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Patents listed for entries for inventors

For entries for inventors do we add the patent numbers for the inventions they are listed on? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, those should be added to seperate items. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

President of the United States (Q11696)

If I want to have a list of presidents of the USA

SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P39 wd:Q11696.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}
LIMIT 100

Try it!

there also appear plenty fictional persons e.g. Wayne Palmer (Q2719854), Nathan Petrelli (Q239318), Noah Daniels (Q10337170), Selina Meyer (Q15507489), Matt Santos (Q610519), Jack Ryan (Q1068314), Lex Luthor (Q735712), G. W. Bridge (Q3093070), Charles Logan (Q860234), David Palmer (Q249898), Caroline Reynolds (Q608408), Josiah Bartlet (Q2715593), Zartan (Q8066924), Ultimate Captain America (Q7880141), Glen Allen Walken (Q5567565), President Winthrop (Q7241251), Gonzo the Mechanical Bastard (Q3545001), Roger Durling (Q3438922), James Heller (Q3056715), Allison Taylor (Q656143), Pete Ross (Q2708077), Prez (Q7242478), President Robert L. Booth (Q7241241), Ed Kealty (Q5335019), General Joseph Colton (Q5531983), Jake Featherston (Q6124670), Doom 2099 (Q5297058). I think we need an item for fictional presidents. --Bigbossfarin (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You can restrict the queries to people who are human using instance of (P31): human (Q5):
SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?itemDescription WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5; wdt:P39 wd:Q11696.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en". }
}
Try it!
--Oravrattas (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Section

Everyone someone who read this can you tell what is this wiki about i had made an account now what i have to do  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harmainayaz89 (talk • contribs) at 13:05, 18. Sep. 2017‎ (UTC).

You can add structured information. take a tour to learn more or read the Introduction --Bigbossfarin (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

cleanup description European Capital of Culture (Q129372)

An item that was a wikinews category was erroneously labelled as a wikimedia category and has been appropriately merged to the item. However the incorrect description has been merged in multiple languages and needs someone to apply a multilanguage fix. I would be interested to know of a means for an easy fix, as manually changing many labels is a PITA. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I did it with the script linked in the edit summary of Special:Diff/561453714. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #278

Merger request

Could an admin, please, merge items "Gheorghe Roman (deputat II)" and "Gheorghe Roman", as they are about one and the same person. Thank you in advance. Mycomp (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done @Mycomp: you can do it yourself next time. --ValterVB (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I thought only admins were allowed to do it. Next time, I'll do it. Mycomp (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons categories should link to wikipedia articles, not categories

model of Wikidata-Commons links

Hello, I'm new here on Wikidata. I've opened a topic about this here, which I feel is important to discuss: Wikidata talk:Wikimedia Commons#Commons categories should link to wikipedia articles, not categories. I'm not sure if that page is much followed, as the last edits seem to be from more than 6 months ago, so I'm informing about it here as well. Please excuse me if it's not appropriate. Thank you, --DarwIn (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussions here and on Commons on how to deal with Wikidata/Commons sitelinks. We have consensus of what should link where if we have both Category and gallery on Commons and category and article item on Wikidata, See image on the right. The situation is less clear when Wikidata has only article item then it seems like the sitelink is to either category or gallery on Commons. The sitelinks are so unpredictable that are mostly unused by tools and we mostly rely on Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935) properties. So as long as properties are set correctly, the sitelinks do not matter. --Jarekt (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I really do not understand why you placed Wikipedia categories in the same space as Commons categories. They share the same name on the domain, but that's all. The main working space in Wikipedia is "main", in Commons is "category" - that's what it, it has ever been like that, at least that I know of. The "main" in Commons corresponds to the galleries, which have a very residual utilization, and serve a very specific (and secondary) purpose. Linking Commons categories to articles is useful. Linking Commons categories to Wikipedia categories is pointless and doesn't serve any purpose that I can think of.--DarwIn (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with DarwIn here. The site links to articles from commons categories are quite important - they are pretty much the only way you can find the corresponding Wikipedia articles (aside from going through each image in the category to see where it is used). The way things are at the moment, with missing sitelinks, data duplication with P373 where sitelinks exist, and an absence of many interwiki links from Commons just seems weird, particularly when we already have the tools to fix this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: That then becomes a very Wikipedia-centric approach. Many of these categories exist on the sisters so often the category to category links are important among the sisters. Tying an article to a commons category can exclude the sisters from that linking, especially if there can be only one wikilink. The hierarchical approach works more maturely for the variances that can exist.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
There was very long RfC, that was closed in favor to item-gallery approach, but there was no consensus in fact. Both item-gallery and item-category approaches are used now on wikidata on mass scale.--Jklamo (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
It can still be corrected to article-category, as it should have been from the start. I really don't know why it was organized that way, in Commons, the old interwikis generally let to wikipedia articles, not categories. And the concept of galleries really have nothing to do with articles. An article of a museum can have a set of galleries dedicated to the exhibitions, and not a single one dedicated to the museum itself. Anyway, as far as I know, those galleries have very little use in Commons, and even less maintenance. The few that exist should never have been linked to articles in Wikidata (at least I can't see the point of doing that).--DarwIn (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@DarwIn: Let's step back here. What you want is that Commons:Category:Haarlem links to en:Haarlem instead of to en:Category:Haarlem, right? That's a valid point. This is where it goes wrong. You assume the only way to achieve this is to move the sitelink for Commons from Category:Haarlem (Q7427769) to Haarlem (Q9920) (and messing up the data model in the process).
It should be too hard to make a (LUA) template on Commons to put on categories which generates a nice intro and also adds the interwiki links to the Wkipedia articles. No need to change anything here.
Part of the code is already available in Commons:Module:Interwiki and I added an example. In the example only missing links are added, in this case it would probably just add the links anyway. Multichill (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@Multichill: I really do not understand the technicalities of that thing, what I see that happened is that the useful interwikis which were once in the Commons categories leading to the articles have been replaced in 2013 by useless and pointless interwikis to the wikipedia categories by Wikidata. And me, and many others, have been manually changing them to what they used to be before over those 4 years. That's how it was before Wikidata came there, and that's what apparently it should be, as the link to the wikipedia category is - again, it's never too much to repeat it - useless and pointless, as opposed to the link to the article. If the Data model has not predicted that, maybe the problem is with the model. I really do not see the point of changing the way we used to work in Commons to a new model which does not fit anyone's need, removed the useful interwikis we used to have there, and to top it added a lot of useless clutter to the right side bar. Even a link to the "commons category" is now there, as if we were not in that Commons category itself. It can't be right the way it is now.--DarwIn (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@DarwIn: you really need to drop the attitude. The consensus has been explained to you so edits like you did on Category:Boituva (Q9558773) will just end up being reverted. I'm offering you help, but not if you continue to act like this. Multichill (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot of Commons category Boituva after revert

@Multichill: Really, I was expecting a more constructive attitude from you than plainly reverting me. On the right, you can see what you achieved with that - Removed the useful interwikis to more than 20 wikipedia articles about Boituva in as many different languages I was working in, illustrating them while organizing the category, and replaced them with a lot of useless and pointless clutter. Reaching those articles is now much more difficult, and I'll not continue that work there - will shift for something else, as I can't easily reach them and placing the images anymore. I was hoping you were open to dialog, but I feel this is a wall here, and it's going nowhere. I think I'll just forget the whole issue. Maybe in the future I'll open a topic about this in Commons for discussion, but for now I'll just try to forget Wikidata exists, despite all the useless clutter it brings to my side bar, and the feeling that we are worst than we were before it appeared, now that we can't use the old interwikis to jump to the articles anymore. Thanks, anyway.--DarwIn (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Multichill (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, TL;DR: I agree with Darwin. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I totally agree with Darwins arguments. In addition to that I also want to point out that I have a very positive understanding on Wikidata and the people who contribute here. --Zaccarias (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
In Maarten's defense, it is in Wikidata's best interest to keep gallery (mainspace) pages linked to articles and category pages linked to category pages. We already have Commons category (P373), category's main topic (P301), and topic's main category (P910), following whom appropriate sitelinks may be found, and because gallery pages as a whole are not nearly as developed or as full as category pages on Commons, some tinkering on Commons' end is neeeded to substitute the pointless links on category pages DarwIn complains about with the appropriate mainspace links he so craves. Mahir256 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Multichill: do I understand you correctly by assuming that I just need to add {{#invoke:Interwiki|interwiki}} to a Commons categories, to add the interwiki links to wp articles that were previously manually generated ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hsarrazin: It seems to work, but looks like a patch to something broken. We'll have to add it to every existent and new category in Commons which is linked to Wikidata, in order to fix what should not be there in first place. And the pointless link to the Commons category we are already in, and some weird link to an English wikipedia category still appear in "other projects".--DarwIn (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Multichill wrote: "It should be too hard to make a (LUA) template on Commons to put on categories which generates a nice intro and also adds the interwiki links to the Wkipedia articles. " We have template like that called c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata based on c:module:Interwiki (which should not be used directly). The setting of the sitelinks from Wikidata to Commons should be irrelevant as long as properties Commons category (P373) and Commons gallery (P935) are correctly set up. --Jarekt (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The reality of the facts on the ground is that (contra @Multichill:) there is no consensus.

As Jklamo points out, "both item-gallery and item-category approaches are used now on wikidata on mass scale". The latest numbers that I am aware of are from January of this year, when there were 437,882 sitelinks from Commons categories to article-items here, compared to 387,768 sitelinks from Commons categories to category-items here. Four times more Commonscat links to article items compared to Commonscat links to category items were added in the 12 months previous to this, so if that trend has continued I would expect the difference now to be even greater.

In addition to what's been written above, one additional point worth considering is that in a great many cases there will not be a category-type item here to sitelink to; nor would it serve any purpose other than useless clutter to create one. In such cases, where there is no gallery on Commons and no category item here, a sitelink from Commonscat to article-item seems entirely sensible, directly achieving (and maintaining) the interwikis desired in both directions, with minimum fuss or maintenance issues.

Personally I think we should bow to what Commons users have consistently asked for, and make Commonscat to article-item links the norm (automatically giving the sitelinks most desired); with Commonscat to category-item links accepted when there is no article item. But the reality is that I would expect the current mixture to persist for the forseeable future, so software writers will need to code accordingly.

Example for Commons c:Category:Leonardo da Vinci

In the meantime, one script that I find consistently useful when looking at Commons categories is wdcat.js, which can be incorporated into one's common.js file on Commons, which displays a link (as shown on the right) whenever a Commons category is the target of a P373 from an article-type Wikidata item. Jheald (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald that in case where there is no category item than article-item -> commons-category sitelinks are fine and preferred over article-item->commons-gallery sitelinks, as majority of commons galleries were not maintained much in last decade and would be a disappointing landing spot. However in case of c:Category:Albert Einstein I prefer sitelink to Category:Albert Einstein (Q7213562) than to Albert Einstein (Q937). And if some sitelink is not to your likeing just use c:Template:Interwiki from wikidata to overwrite the defaults and add interwikis you like. --Jarekt (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Galleries aren't useful because they miss all new content. And for selected images we have mechanisms.
Valued images sometimes miss rare topics, but they are far better than galleries.
Currently c:Category:RenderMan (software) leads to Category:RenderMan (Q8652299) and only then to PhotoRealistic RenderMan (Q855971)
I would prefer to jump between Category:RenderMan (software) and Q855971 directly. d1g (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The existence of galleries is an issue for Commons or to be discussed at Commons. That is not for us to resolve here. If Commons use galleries, then it would seem they are needed to be fitted into place.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: The thing is, I don't believe Wikidata should be using Commons galleries at all. They were never designed or thought for a 1-on-1 correspondence as you are doing here.--DarwIn (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
That is a different conversation than the one you started, though with the same root cause "the value of galleries at Commons, and their proliferation for limited value." If all the crud galleries were swept away, the guidance expressed the whole way through applies easily. I still think that the solution needs to start at Commons, which then has Wikidata working through how to rank the relative linking, and I again restate that primary or priority linking of Commons category to Wikipedia article with an expression of there only being a direct one to one relationship is problematic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst: Why is it problematic? What's the problem with it?--DarwIn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
What? Addressed multiple times and you still come back with what is the problem?  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC) (walking away from those not listening)

It looks like @Multichill: is bot-adding the Lua module to the commons categories, which helps in the short term, but I worry about long-term maintenance - solving this here on Wikidata would seem to me to be easier to keep up-to-date in the long run. But perhaps the upcoming Wikibase changes to Commons will render that moot anyway. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated numbers

@DarwIn, Jarekt, Mike Peel, billinghurst: @Multichill, Yann, Zaccarias, Mahir256: @Hsarrazin, D1gggg:

Further to the above, here are some updated numbers; see also pages for the underlying queries and for historical comparisons

Note that numbers on the larger queries can vary by about +/- 15, depending which replication of the query server the query gets sent to. (This is a known problem, I think, that very occasionally a query server can miss an update from an edit here. It's rare, but can happen).

Commons categories
(6,036,464)
Commons galleries
(114,055)
total linked
Wikidata articles
(~ 31,671,059)
1,396,494 101,289 1,426,784
sitelinks:
539,071
P373:
1,300,596
sitelinks:
97,724
P935:
92,182
sitelinks:
636,795
props:
1,325,041
Wikidata categories
(4,043,980)
422,049 921 422,088
sitelinks:
412,231
P373:
366,353
sitelinks:
4
P935:
919
sitelinks:
412,235
props:
366,370
total linked 1,615,192 101,353 1,848,872 items / 1,716,545 pages
sitelinks:
951,302
P373:
1,467,588
sitelinks:
97,728
P935:
92,247
sitelinks:
1,049,030
props:
1,691,441 items / 1,559,835 pages

Some observations, in no particular order:

  • The total number of categories at Commons is up by about 540,000 since January to now over 6 million. This is on trend. (It may be a slight over-estimate, as I haven't removed soft-redirected categories from the count, neither now nor then. The c:Template:Category redirect template currently has 305,207 transclusions).
  • The number of Commonscat <-> article-item sitelinks is up by just over 100,000 in that time; the number of Commonscat <-> category-item sitelinks by just under 25,000.
  • The total number of category-items on Wikidata is up 40% since January, an increase of almost 1.2 million items. No idea whether these are old items now tagged as categories, or genuinely new items. Has anyone here been creating a lot of category items?
  • The issue of Commons galleries seems to me a red herring. All but 16,500 already have sitelinks; many of that remainder may not even have specific items here. There's no great movement in the gallery link numbers, suggesting to me that people seem happy to leave what's there already as it is. If the existing sitelinks are blocking Commonscat <-> article-item sitelinks, the number of Commons categories affected is comparatively small, compared to the overall number of Commons categories. But equally, as almost all galleries that could have sitelinks do have them, the number of potential Commons gallery <-> article-item sitelinks that would be blocked by new Commons category sitelinks to article-items seems very small indeed.
  • A striking number to me is that 663,890 Commons categories (i.e. the difference between 1,615,192 and 951,302) have no sitelink to any Wikidata item at all, even though we know which item they correspond to. While User:Multichill's new c:Template:Interwiki from Wikidata is a very welcome for Commons categories linked to category-items here, when those category items also have a category's main topic (P301), it leaves a huge number of Commons categories without any sitelink here. Which is difficult not just for sitelinks, but also for any other information we might want to draw from statements on items here. So it seems to me it would be a good thing to start creating sitelinks for currently unlinked Commons categories that we can identify to unique items here.
  • We have about 100,000 Commons categories with sitelinks to articles here but no P373s. There's already Wikidata:Bot_requests#Commonswiki_link_and_P373 a request at Wikidata:Bot requests to add these, which should be relatively uncontroversial, and would be very useful. User:Pasleim has raised the issue of whether category items should also have a P373 added if they haven't already got one, suggesting they shouldn't. On the latter I don't have that strong a feeling either way. P373 is more efficient for the query engine than sitelinks; on the other hand it would be another thing to keep up to date; but it would mean we still hand the P373 link if somebody moved where the sitelink pointed to.

Thoughts on any or all of the above? Jheald (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updated numbers. Inspired me to Wikidata:Bot requests#Commonswiki link and P935.--Jklamo (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: My view is that there's no harm to adding sitelinks where P935/P373 currently exist, as well as vice versa. Worst case, it's duplicated information, best case Commons interwiki links become a lot more usable. It doesn't seem like that huge a job given the numbers in the table, although it would be good if two additional columns could be added for '# of cases where property and site links are the same' and '# where they are not'. I have some half-written code that adds sitelinks where P373 exists, maybe I should turn that into a bot proposal at some point... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Checking the P373 value is the same as the sitelink is surprisingly challenging in SPARQL, (see eg tinyurl.com/y7wvv7zh for an incomplete attempt). The difficulty is that the sitelink URLs escape accented characters but not brackets and punctuation; whereas the P373 is just held as an unescaped string. It seems hard to replicate the escape behaviour other than through a nest of REPLACE() functions.
Other considerations are that some items may have more than one P373 value (though they shouldn't); and either the P373 or the sitelink may point to a commonscat that has since been soft-redirected to another value. However, it should be possible to work round all of this. Jheald (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Smarter suggestions filling the boxes

Hi. I'd like to know something more about the way wikidata suggests possible options to the generic editor who is manually improving an item.

I don't expect everything to be smooth like in the google bar, I understand we have limited means sometimes. However, this example is very common, so I "show" it to you.

I have recently started to create items of scientists, because I want to see how they evolve and show wikidata to friends who are researcher etc etc... so very often in such biographical items I add "P21". Now, P21 has a clear set of values that are statistically more common... I don't expect the system to tell me automatically that if I insert a value that is uncommon, maybe I should think it twice. Nor I expect it to be so smart that simply typing "m" he knows I probably mean "male"... but it is curious to me that after so many years, if I type "male" the options shown by the scroll down menu put the right "male" item (that is the one "to be used with P21") in the third position. Is it just me? Why for this very very very common use, such option is not the first one?

Is our system designed not to learn anything ay all from the overall experience and activity of its many users?

Just curious.--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes I noticed the same thing - extremely annoying. I also changed a few mistakes that I found with a query on "male organism" + Q5. Jane023 (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned above in #male. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Really? I usually check but I was in a hurry... we pointed out the same problem in less than few days? :D--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

instance or subclass of (Q30208840) as a type constraint (Q21503250)

I've been trying to decrease the number of constraint violations on a few properties including Ensembl Protein ID (P705). In this case, the ideal constraint that would not cause so many violations would be: type constraint (Q21503250) -> (relation (P2309)=instance or subclass of (Q30208840)) && (class (P2308)=protein (Q8054)) because many of the items in this database are actual individual proteins, but many are whole families of proteins. Unfortunately according to Help:Property constraints portal/Type, the only allowed values are instance of (Q21503252) or subclass of (Q21514624). Is this likely to change? I have noticed that there are some other constraint reports crashing because those properties are also trying to use this. @Ivan A. Krestinin, KrBot: --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

There is phab:T169858 to support… :-) —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, perfect. --99of9 (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Definition of percentage of one of many ingredients in a mixture

How I can define e.g. "90% acetic acid" as one ingredient of other materials in a mixture, whose amounts are defined by percentages of the whole receipe altogether? In this example liquid cold glue from Brunner (Q37473980) I describe that 2 % of the total amount of the mixture of the material used (P186) is DL-lactic acid (Q161249). But how can I say, that the DL-lactic acid (Q161249) itself is a 2% solution, beside other solutions of different percentages of which the material is consisting of? --Scoid d (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

proportion (P1107)? - Brya (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the difference between proportion (P1107) (e.g. used in steel (Q11427)) and quantity (P1114) is not clear to me and doubt, that it might solve my explanations for ingredients in a recipe. --Scoid d
The value for proportion (P1107) should be a fraction between 0 and 1
The value of quantity (P1114) is most usually an integer. Jheald (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you can use proportion (P1107) to specify the concentration, because if you have a statement like
material used (P186) or has part (P527) -> DL-lactic acid (Q161249) ; proportion (P1107) -> 0.02
to specify the amount that goes into the mixture, then you can't also use P1107 to specify the strength of the DL-lactic acid (Q161249).
We might need a new additional property here like "concentration", maybe also "molarity".
An alternative would be to create a new item for "90% acetic acid", as itself a mixture; but that wouldn't extend well beyond the most very common concentrations of reagents. Jheald (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
(ec) A further possibility, I suppose, would be to 'extract out' the water, so instead of saying 2% of a 2% solution, say 0.04% of the chemical plus 0.196% water. But that seems to me to be not great. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Best solution does seem to me to be a new qualifier property "reagent concentration", with units -- eg g/L or M; or v/v for volumetric proportion. Jheald (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Quantity = number of instances (an integer), proportion = relative amount. Curiously "percentage" is allowed with quantity, instead of with proportion. But indeed it is not possible to have qualifiers to qualifiers (2nd degree qualifiers). - Brya (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Is somebody willing to formulate an appropriate proposal? I am eager to see more concise data flowing in, but without a new property this stops me feeding more data. --Scoid d (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Questions from a beginner

Greetings,

I just started contributing to Wikidata, and it is wonderful. As I move on, I have a couple of questions to ask.

  • Is there any Manual of Style for Wikidata, like on en Wikipedia. For example, or order to be followed for a particular category of items, order of qualifiers while adding references etc.
  • Is there any provision to add a reference name? In the sense, again like on en Wiki, you give a ref name to one citation, you can pull in that citation as many times you as required by just using the ref name, instead of the whole citation again.

--Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikidata!
  • For references we have Help:Sources with a “Manual of Style” character, but there isn’t a real overview for direct properties or qualifiers. There are plenty of Wikidata:WikiProjects and they often give advice how to organize certain types of items, but you need to find this by yourself. Another possibility would be to use the Wikidata Query Service and query which properties are used in similar items as the one you would like to improve.
  • You can’t add a reference name, but there is a gadget called “DuplicateReferences” at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Once you have a complete reference, you can simply c&p it within an item to other claims. However, it creates hard copies.
MisterSynergy (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Greetings MS, I see that very useful. Coming to my second question, it is good to have a tool to duplicate the reference. But is there any way from here to proceed to develop a new feature to add a reference name, because this will not only helps the contributors but also reduce the load on servers. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 07:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The statements in items are meant to be fully independent of each other, thus there are intentionally hard copies of references for each individual statement, and a naming functionality as in Wikipedia is not going to be developed. The gadget just makes it comfortable to use the same source for multiple statements without much click-work. Also: don’t worry about server load Face-smile.svg; WMF has plenty of money, they should invest in case the capacities are not sufficient any longer. Wikidata outshines all other Wikimedia projects in terms of server load anyway (in a couple of measures). —MisterSynergy (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I guess a rough equivalent of Wikipedia's reference names would be the use of standalone items to store citation metadata. For instance, A novel family of mammalian taste receptors (Q22253877) represents an article that is used in many references (see the incoming links). There can still be variation in the references themselves (for instance, the page numbers can vary.) If you are interested in this topic, feel free to join WikiProject Source Metadata. − Pintoch (talk) 09:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems to fit to this proposal. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: - There is the m:WikiCite project, which is "a proposal to build a bibliographic database in Wikidata to serve all Wikimedia projects," so references may not always be hand-done and replicated. Also, welcome to the project, and I'd encourage you to look at Wikidata:WikiProject Books as a well-filled out project that shows what properties are typically used, and how the taxonomy is laid out. -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliquaries

Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506). I have used this item as a test case with the statement: "has part -> John the Baptist -> applies to part -> tooth" but I am not convinced this is a correct way to structure this info.

I was wondering what the best way to structure statements about instances of "reliquary (Q722604)". These are, by definition "containers" of religious items - usually bone(s) or of saints, pieces of hair, splinters of wood or nails... We currently have 1900 Wikidata items responding to the query of "instance of -> reliquary" with the vast majority of those being bot-imported items from the French database of movable cultural heritage with a Palissy ID (P481). For example, this reliquaire de crâne de saint Victurnien is Q29247401.
A few dozen of these items have Wikipedia articles in some languages, however as far as I can see (though I admit I have not looked at ALL of them) none has any statements pertaining to their "contents". That is: how should a Wikidata item about a reliquary state what is inside it?
has part (P527) and material used (P186) both are suggested properties for the word "contains" but neither is appropriate in my opinion. Equally, I feel applies to part (P518) (or some equivalent?) must be used in some manner in order to indicate specificity - e.g. not the whole saint, but just a finger bone etc. I have used "has part" with a qualifier of "has part" in the test-case item described in the image to the right.
Does anyone have any suggestions? The solution needs to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate individual specific bones and/or mummified pieces of specific people; entire mummified bodies or skeletons (e.g. Karlsschrein (Q1551658); non-human objects (such as 'piece of wood' or 'nail' from the True Cross (Q380356)).
One of the interesting potential use-cases of this kind of work would be to "discover" a saint with >10 fingers, or to map the native habitat of the various types of wood claimed to be pieces of the true cross... Wittylama (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Crazy idea, I love it! Face-wink.svg
And good question: I agree that material used (P186) clearly doesn't seems appropriate (if the reliquary is made of gold, the origin of the gold is often unknown and doesn't matter but for the relic itself, it matter greatly where it come from) ; has part (P527) is a little better but I'm not sure... For it to work, we would need an item about the relic itself (eg. 'tooth of John the Baptist'), don't we?
PS: I can't wait to see how many tons of relic of the True Cross (Q380356) there is in the world! Face-wink.svg
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
VIGNERON (talkcontribslogs) "Baldrick, you stand amazed ..." [3]. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
VIGNERON (talkcontribslogs) - you don't need a wikidata item for the individual part being described (e.g. "tooth of john the baptist") IF you use the "applies to part" qualifier - see the example in the caption of the image above. That at least solves the need to have a wikidata item for every bone of every saint but I don't think it solves the overarching question. Wittylama (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
An alternative to "has part -> John the Baptist -> applies to part -> tooth" might be "has part -> tooth -> of -> John the Baptist" --Pharos (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes great idea and I also think "has part <the person in question>" and then "applies to part <the part in question>" is an elegant approach. Jane023 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
One concern I have is that the "applies to part" qualifier usually indicates which part of the subject of the statement it is that the statement applies to -- so <painting> "made of": "wood" has the qualifier "applies to part": "frame".
Part of the cleanup planned for the qualifier no label (P794) is to separate usages which qualify the subject of the statement from usages which qualify the object, and to use different properties for each. It would be a shame, just as this is being dealt with, to create a similar muddle with "applies to part". Jheald (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, Jheald you mean to say that in my example Use-case, by using the "applies to part" qualifier the "tooth" is technically being implied to be a part of the Reliquary/container not the saint?
Do you have a solution? I feel like there must be one :-) Surely there must be other circumstances where we need to structure the concept of "X is 'inside of' Y"? I am loath to suggest "a new bespoke property" just for religious containers! Wittylama (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
In principle it should be easy enough to create a property that would be parallel to applies to part (P518), but would indicate a part of the value of the statement, rather than a part of the subject. I am sure that reliquaries can't be the only case where that could be useful! The real challenge is to think up a good name for it, that would be natural but distinguish it from P518. "Applies to part (of value):" might do as a first stab; but it might be a bit opaque and mysterious to somebody coming across it for the first time in a statement on a page. Jheald (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that this sense of "contains" should be different from P527 and P186
We also had physically interacts with (P129) and designed to carry (P3349)
But not a property for "used as container for" "contains"
Container item is here: container (Q987767) d1g (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
no label (Q29478647) (like distribution (P437), host (P2975), has natural reservoir (P1605))? --Fractaler (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
"Used as a container for" would have many other applications as well.--Pharos (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Another property useful for reliquaries may be commemorates (P547), which could unambiguously state who the reliquary is dedicated to, without that being a definitive statement about the historical provenance of the contents (which would often be a qualified statement).--Pharos (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There is enclosure (P3158), but that's more intended for bigger structures (e.g. telescope domes). Maybe a copy of that as "container" would work? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

If we go for 'has part' → 'tooth' ('of' → 'John'), then the correct property is has parts of the class (P2670), not has part (P527). We should use the latter only if it would point to an individual item actually about 'John's tooth'. Thierry Caro (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thierry Caro: No, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of has parts of the class (P2670). P2670 should only be used on statements where the subject-item is a class; it should not be used where the subject item is an instance, eg a particular reliquary. P527 is entirely appropriate -- its value can either be a specific thing, or a more generic class of things. Jheald (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I think you're the one mistaken because of the conversation you had on the property talk page. It was intended to work the way I've just specified. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Thierry Caro: the clue is in the name of the property: "has parts [plural] of the class" X. If there is only one tooth, then P2670 is not applicable.
The most common use is to make statements about classes A, so if ( A has parts of the class (P2670) X ) then ( a member a of class A may have has part (P527) a value x which is an instance of class X ).
So, from the examples on the property pages of P527 and P2670,
Solar System (Q544) has part (P527) { Mercury (Q308), Venus (Q313), Earth (Q2), Sun (Q525), ... }
<--> planetary system (Q206717) has parts of the class (P2670) { planet (Q634), star (Q523) }
similarly,
triathlon (Q10980) has part (P527) { running (Q105674), road bicycle racing (Q3609), swimming (Q31920) }
<--> multisport race (Q31645) has parts of the class (P2670) type of sport (Q31629)
As a secondary use, one can also use has parts of the class (P2670) for an object that contains so many sub-parts, that it makes sense to talk about whole classes of those sub-parts, so
Universe (Q1) has parts of the class (P2670) astronomical body (Q6999)
But for a single reliquary containing a single tooth, one should use has part (P527) -- there is no value-type constraint on the value of P527, it can be either a specific thing or a generic member of a class of things; so:
reliquary (Q722604) has parts of the class (P2670) relic (Q187616)
but Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) has part (P527) tooth (Q553) (of: John the Baptist)
Jheald (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So - to summarise the consensus - here are four new examples I've just edited in the manner I believe is what is described. Please confirm this is the agreed method:

  1. Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) -> has part (P527) -> tooth (Q553) -> of (P642) -> John the Baptist (Q40662)
  2. Holy Thorn Reliquary (Q3932379) -> has part (P527) -> spine (Q201851) -> of (P642) -> crown of thorns (Q1127583) (and I have added the further qualifier quantity (P1114) -> 2 spine[s]) diff).
  3. Karlsschrein (Q1551658) -> has part (P527) -> human skeleton (Q9621) -> of (P642) -> Charlemagne (Q3044) (diff)
  4. Záviš Cross (Q36513) -> has part (P527) -> splinter (Q2510520) -> of (P642) -> True Cross (Q380356) (with the further qualifier material used (P186)-> cedar wood (Q5056949)) (diff)

Are all these correct?
And, if that is indeed the agreed way to do this - where can we document this fact so someone in the future doesn't have to ask again? Wittylama (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

My gut feeling, on reflection, is that has part is wrong for these. The description is fine, but since this is the devotional object of the thing, it should not be listed as a mere part of the thing. So other parts like the gold this or that or the gems studded in it, should be parts of it, but the devotional object, the relic itself, should have a more specific property, like "Main subject" or something like that. Thanks for your examples! Jane023 (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Aye, I don't really like the use of has part (P527) for this (since the contents of the reliquary are not a part of the reliquary), but I can't think of a better way to represent this short of a new "contains item" sort of property. Lankiveil (talk) 10:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC).
There was a long RFC on "part of" long ago, and the consensus seemed that it was too generic and that more specific properties were needed. There are some good proposals on the RFC, it is just a matter of starting a property proposal.--Micru (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if User:Pharos's suggestion above of using P547 might be a good one, with P527 as a qualifier; so:
  1. Reliquary with the Tooth of Saint John the Baptist (Q24946506) -> commemorates (P547) -> John the Baptist (Q40662) -> has part (P527) -> tooth (Q553)
  2. Karlsschrein (Q1551658) -> commemorates (P547) -> Charlemagne (Q3044) -> has part (P527) -> human skeleton (Q9621)
  3. Holy Thorn Reliquary (Q3932379) -> commemorates (P547) -> crown of thorns (Q1127583) -> has part (P527) -> spine (Q201851), quantity (P1114) -> 2
This seems to put the horse before the cart better. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes "commemorates" is definitely better. Interesting approach indeed to indicate the part of the thing that it commemorates. Still not quite satisfied with this from a devotional perspective. A commemoration is often a new design, and not the thing itself (which of course may have doubtful provenance, yada yada). So do we have anything else, religion-wise? Jane023 (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think "commemorates" is most often used for monuments and holidays, but I also think it can apply to churches, other houses of worship that are dedicated to a religious figure, and also shrines that are supposed to have an (often unproven) historical connection to a religious figure.--Pharos (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Churches tend to use named after (P138) I think -- potentially important to standardise because there are a huge number of "Churches named for <X> in place <Y>" categories on Commons, that it would be nice to be able to parallel with a query here. Jheald (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently 5447 using P138 tinyurl.com/y87shyoq, 3 using P547 tinyurl.com/yby2x4r2 -- though potential for many more. Jheald (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a nice query on the talk page for the classes P547 is currently applied to: tinyurl.com/ybrcyqw2 Jheald (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I've added "commemorates" to a non-religious item that is in some ways comparable to a shrine - Plymouth Rock (Q1072391), where the object certainly predates the thing it is commemorating, and where the actual historical connection is unproven.--Pharos (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Churches etc. I believe use "Dedicated" - we have St. Stephen's Cathedral (Q5943) -> dedicated to (P825) -> Stephen (Q161775) for example.
I understand the reaction to "has part" (expressed by User:Jane023 & User:Lankiveil) - the piece of saint/cross in the reliquary is "more" than merely a part of it - it is the reason for the container's existence. However, despite User:Jheald's use of User:Pharos's idea "commemorates (P547)" I'm not sure that's correct either for this structured statement. "Commemorates", I think, would be a good/appropriate standalone statement without qualifiers, for example:
Karlsschrein (Q1551658) -> commemorates (P547) -> Charlemagne (Q3044) fullstop. This is the same idea as the church item I described at the beginning of this comment.
A Q-item does not need to have a "piece of" the saint inside it in order to commemorate that saint, so I reckon it's a worthwhile statement in its own right. Nonetheless, "commemorates" is not sufficient, in my humble opinion, to indicate the idea that there-is-a-physical-piece-of-something-inside-this-object that is worthy of note. Wittylama (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
4641 churches using P825 tinyurl.com/y9m3wra8, so that's probably something that needs a closer look. (Possible further complication: is it possible for a church to be named for one item, but dedicated to another?)
On further thought I think you're right that the P547 should be there and express the commemoration full stop. One technical problem with has part (P527) as a qualifier is it makes the further qualifier quantity (P1114) awkward. Is the reliquary dedicated to two crowns of thorns? So P1114 probably does need to be qualifying a separate statement, if we want it to be possible to use.
I'm a lot happier with the has part (P527) statement now, knowing that a commemorates (P547) statement will be there as well, carrying the weight of the reliquary's dedication. I'm open to the creation of a new, more specialist property "contains", to be a sub-property of P527; but I think P527 is good enough that I'd be happy if people wanted to go with that for the moment, with the option of swapping it for a more specialist "contains" property in due course. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think that the "has part" bit should only be about parts of the reliquary, and not the relic. I think we do need a separate property for these reelics and devotional things in general, perhaps "devotional object"? I understand that it would be convenient to lump them together with all of the national treasures (like Plymouth Rock) or sports treasures (like winner's shoes or bicycles), but religious objects being so widespread I feel they need their own property. That said, these should probably also be their own item, in which case they can be used for more than one vessel or church (as was often the case). Churches change faiths and names and reliquaries with and without contents get passed around and often end up in museums (both with and without original contents). Jane023 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I think "has part" is a sufficient, but perhaps not satisfactory solution - it will do if we we're not adding any new properties and seems to have the reasonable consensus of this discussion thread (if used in association with a separate "commemorates" statement).
However, IF we want to make a proposal for a new property that more directly addresses this use-case, what should it be? ""devotional object" sounds like an item, not a property - do you mean "is devotional object of"? Alternatively, could a more generic property "contains" be viable - a property that therefore could be valid for other (non reliquary) use-cases? Perhaps "contains" could also be used for satellites/rockets to indicate their payload?? Whatever the answer I think an important criteria needs to be that it doesn't require the creation of a new Q-item for the relic inside the reliquary (we don't want thousands of items that are instance-of a finger-bone...). Wittylama (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. My problem is that many reliquaries in museums are now empty, but it would still be nice to indicate what the reliquary was designed to hold. Therefore, an item for the relic is handiest when you want to indicate the specific relic (or group of relics, such as the relics of St. Donatianus that were removed from the St. Donatian Cathedral in Bruges before it was deconstructed by the French). When the relic or group of relics is lost or unknown, it would be nice to be able to indicate this (like the way we use "anonymous' for unknown painters). Before you get people up in arms about reliquaries that may or may not be still containing devotional objects, it would be nice to be able to give some sort of relic-status indication, whether or not it is based on some religious event or inspection. Jane023 (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Digression: @Wittylama, Jane023, Pharos, Jheald: good to see that the discussion is still ongoing (seeing the length, maybe we should create a project page?). Here a strange case for you (maybe it can help, I hope so): Vincent de Paul (Q244413). His whole body is in a reliquary (a reliquary chest (Q2967773) more precisely) in the chapelle Saint-Vincent-de-Paul de Paris (Q2957025). And here is the catch : his whole body *except* the heart and a forearm. Apparently, none of the suggestions I've seen so far take that scenario into account (which is not that unusual I can think of several other similar cases). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Qualifiers excluding (P1011) or does not have part (P3113) look possible.
So eg has part (P527) cadaver (Q48422) -> of (P642) Vincent de Paul (Q244413) , excluding (P1011) heart (Q1072), excluding (P1011) forearm (Q228537) Jheald (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Ew. That just sounds so morbid. Is using "cadaver" really the only way to do it? Jane023 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
But relics are morbid. :-) We could agree to use body (Q170494) -- or mummy (Q43616), depending how much of Vincent is left.
Or do we need an item "preserved body" to deal with cases like Lenin's Mausoleum (Q191414) ? Jheald (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
That's funny - this made me think of Lenin too. I like mummy, which of course is probably the oldest version of venerated remains, though we also talk about mummified creatures that just get dried out on their own. I think we need a property for "contains" with an item as target, in the sense that the thing is "purpose built" to contain the target, whether it is mummified remains or pieces of shoe. So e.g. on St. Vincent, there is the chapel which is purpose-built to contain that shrine and then there is a whole church in the same city dedicated to him which doesn't contain any bits of him. So if we had a new item "venerated remains" (unspecified body part or parts) then this could be the anonymous version of the item for this new "contains" property, but in the case of the chapel, it contains the specific mummified remains of St. Vincent (minus arm etc). The advantage to having an item in this case is that there may at some point be an article for the mummy (there isn't yet) but you can at least cram the main info into the description. Jane023 (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
now that we're getting in to more and more obscure edge cases I'm quite confused as to the status of how we should handle the 'normal cases'... Over on the wikidata + glam Facebook group discipussion about this there is a few interesting use-cases (behind reliquaries) for the usefulness of a "contains" property. Can/could/should we propose that officially? Wittylama (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this conversation has gone as far as it can go... I’ve now made a formal proposal for Property:CONTAINS. Please comment there: Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#Contains. Wittylama (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge needed

Can someone review Q22938620 and Q30672323 which are actually the same building? Check out the Mérimée listing though it shows the incorrect image of a different building in rue Gambetta called the w:Hôtel de Bernuy whose wikidata is here: Q22938605. Ww2censor (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done by ValterVB--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Library of Congress Labs

The Library of Congress (Q131454) has a new department:Labs. On the overview page they say "We hope this list of APIs, bulk downloads, and tutorials will help you begin exploring the many ways the Library of Congress provides machine-readable access to its digital collections." Could be of interest! YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Featured items

Greetings, as I have been observing the list of items listed as "Popular items" on the Main page, I am concerned about the quality of the item. Most of them don't have any references and also don't have all possible properties. It is not recommendable of present such items on the main page (it is like featuring a stub on en Wikipedia's main page). At this juncture, I propose that instead of "Popular items" we must have "Featured items" (say 5 featured items per day), similar to TFA/TFL on en Wikipedia.

These "Featured items" will be the items that are well developed with required properties and referenced. Adopting this will not only help us to present the best of Wikidata to world but also motivate the editors focus on the quality of a item rather than just creating and adding properties. I would request all of you please discuss this, and so that we can formulate a good policy for the same. --Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean WD:Showcase items? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Popular items are truly popular items, list generated by bot (see Wikidata:Main Page/Popular/Configuration. Showcase items are presented at "Get involved" section (see Wikidata:Main Page/Get involved) by link to showcase item Douglas Adams (Q42). Feel free to propose better (and more dynamic) presentation. But bear in mind that unfortunately Showcase items project is in fact inactive (feel free to revive it).--Jklamo (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Krishna_Chaitanya_Velaga: Hi, actually the practice of "only top notch content" on the front page of English Wikipedia (and many others) is an annoying artifact I'd like to not repeat here on Wikidata. First, Wikidata is at a much different point in evolution vs. Wikipedia, and we should encourage folks to experiment and get involved. There's nothing better to get people working than to present things that need work. The "Discover" box and featured WikiProject would do a better job of showcasing good work. -- Fuzheado (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Food Web Data

Does Wikidata do food web data? Like what species prey on what others? Abyssal (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It does. Property main food source (P1034) can be part of species description. --Scoid d (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Scoid d:Thanks for the reply. What if it consumes a wide variety of prey items, none of which being "main"? Abyssal (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You can tell, they are omnivore (Q164509) or define percentages to particular main food source (P1034).--Scoid d (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

how to define religion as LDS?

Hi, I'm new to Wikidata. I was trying to do some data queries on Latter-day Saints, but I discovered that many prominent Latter-day Saints don't yet have their religion defined. I added "religion - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" to Joseph Smith Jr. and Brigham Young's entries, but I'm not sure if that was the right way to say it, because if someone asked me my religion I would say "Latter-day Saint" or "Mormon", not "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." However, I noticed that Pope Francis's religion is "Catholic Church". Is this the correct way to add the religion statement? Thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): yes that looks fine, that is the right way to use that property. Please note religion for living people should be only added with a supporting reference. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Project conflict

Can an administrator please revert this action. People over here can explain Wikidata rules better than I can, might it enter into an edit war. Someone on Dutch Wikipedia feels this is a private opinion, on Dutch Wikinews reviews can be written (this is a procedural option of "original news"). Ymnes (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

They shouldn't be connected with a movie, though. There can be multiple reviews or other articles about a subject, so they should be seperate entities. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The addressed link is a link to personal review of the movie. Personal reviews contain personal opinions and such shouldn't be in a project Wikinews in the first place, but since there original editor is somewhat the only editor and admin on the Dutch Wikinews, there is no chance of having the review being removed from that project. The second, suboptimal solution is to remove links to that project and that is what happened. Please follow this link for the discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. Thanks, Brimz (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ymnes: For matters requiring administrator intervention, please use Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

acting governor

I intended to update the governor of Stockholm County (Q104231) to the new one. But I discovered that new hasn't been installed yet. An "Åsa Ryding" will be "acting governor" until November 1. How do I describe this? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

One way would be to use "acting" as a qualifier. This would cut the time in two.. a period with the qualifier and one without. NB in many instances an "acting" period is combined with the period after an inauguration. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I made a try. head of government (P6):Åsa Ryding (Q40549831) as deputy governor (Q40550232) from 2017-09-01
A new office holder will be installed as of November 1. Remind me then! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
To also state the unsaid here. "Åsa Ryding" is not the person who will be governor in Nov 1. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Advice needed for importing Japanese Database of National important cultural properties

Hi all

I'm helping to import the Japanese Database of National important cultural properties into Wikidata, its the Japanese list of listed buildings. One of the parameters in the list is a classification from 1 - 9, however the definitions for each classification are very broad. It appears to me that it would not be possible to use these classifications as a way of adding data to 'instance of' in the usual way because they are not specific enough. I can think of two options:

  1. Create items for each of the types e.g 'Japanese Database of National important cultural properties type 1' and then include them in the property 'instance of'
  2. A new property for 'Japanese Database of National important cultural properties type'

Thoughts?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Creating a new property is possible, see for instance Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (P2643) which is used like this: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q49108#P2643 . However, I'm not sure how useful this format is − you really need to know about that particular property to use the data. But messing up with the ontology is not particularly appealing either. − Pintoch (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

dump of games

where can I find the dump of this game. I want list of the suggestionsYamaha5 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

you should try and contact @Magnus Manske: :) --Hsarrazin (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I made you a snapshot of the database. These are all current people candidates that have not been set in the game. --Magnus Manske (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Magnus Manske: thanks that is great! I have a bot which adds some claims to human items base on fawiki's article and it works more than 2 years. I will run it on these items and it will add proper claims. also please send the game's items to finish this game which have article at fawiki Yamaha5 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

People changing country names

The most common type of vandalism I'm currently seeing here (possibly because each edit is repeated many times on my enwp watchlist) is people changing country names. The most recent example is [4], but I've seen it across different countries. It feels like this isn't intentional vandalism - it looks like people might be trying to correct the country that something is in, but I have no idea where/why/how. Has anyone else spotted this / got any theories about where it could be coming from? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, I'm undoing one or two of these almost every day. As you say, only a handful of them look like vandalism — many are these are similar of your example (someone changing the name of a country from, say, Colombia to Venezuela), implying that they think they're trying to correct a country reference on an entirely different page, but end up changing the label of the country instead. --Oravrattas (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion it is normal intentional vandalism from mobile device, from the point of vandal it is changing label of adjacent contry to name of "my" country. Quite common. Semi-protection is a way to avoid this.--Jklamo (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jklamo: Can we semi-protect labels whilst leaving the rest of the entry editable? If so, that might be a good way forward for country names. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nationality automatic statements

I have seen it more than a couple of times, so I'm putting a note here. en:Jus soli is not the case for most of the countries. So, automatic creation of a P27 statement based on the place of birth can be wrong in many cases. A person born in Athens would be Ottoman if born 300 years ago, or even Japanese if they were born during their parents vacation in Greece... :-) -Geraki (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Also country of citizenship (P27) in many cases are not related to "Nationality". For example Albrecht Dürer is usually described as "German" in wikipedia articles and external sources, but there is no way to look up his nationality on Wikidata. Albrecht Dürer (Q5580)instance of (P31)   is Duchy of Bavaria (Q47261) (hypothesis (Q41719)), I do not know how to write a template (or even a query) to convert that to German nationality. That is why I proposed to create "nationality" property. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd support a property for "nationality". - PKM (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
PKM, than vote (and maybe explain why) at Wikidata:Property proposal/Nationality. --Jarekt (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Dates with Gregorian and Julian Dates

I find many aspects of our current model of storing dates in different calendars very messy. Just to name a few:

  1. There are many items that save the same date using both Gregorian and Julian Calendar. For example Eugene Felitsyn (Q22687867) has date of birth (P569) set to "" and to " (Julian)"; However that is just two notations of the same date equivalent of storing the same elevation above sea level (P2044) in meters, kilometers and feet because all 3 units are allowed. Maybe it would be simpler to keep a single value in most appropriate calendar (Julian before 1584 and Gregorian afterwards) and use software to convert dates to desired ones if needed. For example {{#invoke:Calendar|Julian2Gregorian|1848-03-05}} gives "1848-03-17", so there is no need for both.
  2. Julian vs. Gregorian calendars make little sense for dates with century, decade or even year precision. For example S Potter (Q2204465) has date of birth (P569) set to "5. century BCE" one in Julian and one in Gregorian Calendar. Both statements are true but Gregorian "5. century BCE" date makes very little sense. I think it would make sense to change dates with century, decade or year precision to the appropriate calendar (Julian before 1584 and Gregorian afterwards).

There is phabricator:T105100 task related to this, although I did not read the whole discussion yet. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is more than one source, it's probably best to give the version of the date that's contained in the source, to make it easier for people who verify the date in the source but don't know how to do calendar conversions.
If it's clear what calendar should apply to the event, the calendar field should reflect that.
It's just not true that dates in or after 1584 are necessarily Gregorian. Large parts of Europe, nearby areas, and colonies continued to use Julian; Greece didn't convert until 1923.
I think the most widespread cause of false dates is the claim in the data model documentation that we pay attention to time zones (although w:Universal Time is the only zone we can use) when in reality nearly all sources state time in local time, and our editors and bots nearly always copy dates from sources to Wikidata with no attempt to allow for time zone. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Last week, I was implementing calendar conversion to cswiki modules. Having looked for testcases, I found many items with dates in Julian calendar, which had already been converted to Gregorian. These are probably relicts from older software that managed time values inconsistently.
The calendar should follow the same pattern like quantity values with units, ie. should be based on the original source. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I know that many countries used Julian dates after 1584, the same way US is still using feet and gallons instead of metric units, but that does not mean we need to store same information using all available units. For example this query
SELECT ?item ?julianDate ?gregorianDate
{
  ?item p:P569 ?date1 .
  ?item p:P569 ?date2 FILTER( ?date2 != ?date1 ) . # more than one statement
  ?date1 psv:P569 [ wikibase:timeValue ?julianDate;    wikibase:timeCalendarModel wd:Q1985786; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer; ] .
  ?date2 psv:P569 [ wikibase:timeValue ?gregorianDate; wikibase:timeCalendarModel wd:Q1985727; wikibase:timePrecision "11"^^xsd:integer; ] .
  FILTER( ?julianDate = ?gregorianDate )      .
}       
LIMIT 100

Try it!

finds cases where we have 2 statements with the same date one in Gregorian and one in Julian calendar. I do not think we need both, as those statements are identical. If we want to keep both we could have a qualifier like "date in calendar used by the source" to store the date in easier to verify format. But we should not keep the same date in two different statements using the same units. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually maybe the qualifier should be named "date in other calendar" so items like Vladimir Steklov (Q559188) can have 2 references for the same statement. --Jarekt (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

batch-add statements to items from a Wikipedia category?

Is there a way to automatically add properties to certain items that are in the same Wikipedia category? For example, I'd like to add occupation>prophet to all the people in the Wikipedia Category:Presidents of the Church (LDS Church). Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I could get the members of the category in a spreadsheet with the Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets, for use in quickstatements... but I'm not sure if there's a way to get WikiData identifiers from the Tools for Google Spreadsheets. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You can use PetScan. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I got it to work with the Google spreadsheets. Quickstatements can convert from enwiki article titles (I found out). This is like magic! Anyone can use quickstatements? I'm kind of scared that I might mess up, but I'm also excited to add data! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Rachel Helps (BYU): - Welcome! Yes, anyone can use Quickstatements. I pretty much do what you did - use Petscan to generate a list of articles in a category, and then export that as CSV. I then import that into Google Sheets, and then use the Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets to grab Wikidata Q numbers, and then generate triples using forumlas to feed to Quickstatements. I also have a script that invokes ORES, so that you can see the article rating of the corresponding Wikipedia articles, and creates a summary of the overall quality of the set. Ping me if you want the code or you want to play with it. -- Fuzheado (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: I am interested in your script for article ratings! It seems like it would be good for finding stubs to work on in a certain category. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

ISNI - data donation 2017-09-22 - 1000 items

For your consideration, 1000 ISNI that are missing.

Large amount of raw data not suitable for Project chat page; still available at [5]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
With section link: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=563497464#ISNI_-_data_donation_2017-09-22_-_1000_items 92.231.173.171 13:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

85.182.0.43 03:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested personal project

Hello.I want to work on this idea.Do you think it is useful and should be implemented?Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • No, I don't think it's useful. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I can barely understand what that page is about but no, inverse properties are what we try to avoid. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • You don’t have to ask for a “personal” project. However, if you want other editors to join a project, use of English would be useful. I barely understand what your plans are. Nevertheless I support the view of others in this section that inverse properties should be rare exceptional cases and, if somehow possible, avoided. —MisterSynergy (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

ISNI - data donation 2017-09-22 - 10000 items

For your consideration, 10000 ISNI that are missing.

Large amount of raw data not suitable for Project chat page; still available at [6]. —MisterSynergy (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
With section link https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=563720499#ISNI_-_data_donation_2017-09-22_-_10000_items 92.231.173.171 13:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

92.231.173.171 12:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, random Berliner that we at Wikidata hope isn't Tobias! You are welcome to add those ISNIs yourself, with ISNIs represented as four blocks of four digits, by changing every line in your dataset to one of the form Q$1<tab>P213<tab>$2 (where $1 is the QID, $2 is the appropriate ISNI, and <tab> represents an actual horizontal tab), at QuickStatements (this will require you to log in). Mahir256 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Q4755253

This has links to the en-wiki Andrea Robinson page and the commons File:Andrea Robinson.jpg. They are not the same person - see https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-robinson-6262084/ and OTRS 2017091410022554. I've removed the image link on en-wiki, not sure if anything needs to be done here. Ronhjones (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Use of number of speakers (P1098) for describing a sociolinguistic situation

Hello! The authors of the index of the Basque language street use has realeades a bunch of data in order to upload to Wikimedia projects. It has the percentage of daily use of a language in different locations. They ask if it would be possible to have it in Wikidata and, if not possible, we could upload this data to the templates in Wikipedia. I was thinking about number of speakers (P1098). Could it be used correctly in this way?

Ondarroa (Q595283) -> number of speakers (P1098) -> 79,70% |-> of (P642) -> Basque (Q8752)

Any other solution? -Theklan (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No, number of speakers (P1098) shows number of speakers of that language in the world. The correct use would be "language spoken in area: basque, proportion (P1107): 79,70%". I can't find whether we have such a property at the moment. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Theklan: It's language used (P2936). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

problem with a page move on Wikipedia

Hey can someone with more page move experience tell me what happened here? The user claims good faith, see User talk:Zawl. I discovered this when I noticed the enwiki page had no item associated with it and the links on Wikidata were all going to an enwiki list article. Is this some sort of new vandalism that takes advantage of unsuspecting Wikipedia page movers? Thx. Jane023 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

[7] offers the explanation. One of those moves was skipped because it involved "Draft" namespace, which is not permitted here. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I saw that but couldn't understand what happened (also because of the redlinks). So does this mean that potentially all recent page moves using that gadget since the draft namespace was started has broken Wikidata sitelinks? If so, then someone should 1) change that thing and 2) do a bot run and cleanup. Jane023 (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
yeah, maybe we need to throttle wikidata deletions of moves to draft space or worklists, since it thrashes multiple wikidata item creations. the edit warring over article names, should not lose an item; the "move to draft" rather than deletion, should not be rewarded here. Slowking4 (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue here is the silly "round robin" system on pagemoves on enwiki, because RfA there is too broken to elect enough new admins so they need to let non-admins do this. Not sure how to fix this on our end. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
i seem to recall moves to draft, not being deleted here, before the notability "improvement". maybe wikidata should go back to that practice. since that is more likely than english becoming unbroken. Slowking4 (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well first steps should be to somehow determine impact. I don't actually know when the draft namespace was invented or on which wikis it is actually used, but I guess there must be a way to check for Wikidata sitelink changes based on draft namespace moves and then try to figure out how many such events have occurred. If it is a low number, then maybe just leave it up to page watchers who notice? This item had lots of sitelinks, but presumably there are way more out there that have local wiki pagename-wars with much fewer interwikilinks. This situation only lasted I guess for about 3 hours, which isn't too bad. I do get that such Wikipedia local gadgets can't be corrected on the basis of what happens here, but this is a really weird one that completely confounded me. Jane023 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

ISNI - data donation 2017-09-23 - 6504 items (all starting with "8")

[8]  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.226.163.169 (talk • contribs) at 08:20, 23 September 2017‎ (UTC).

This is still not an import hub, so I moved the raw data to the version history again. @all: please mind that the anon user is globally banned (User:Tamawashi), and meanwhile this IP was blocked here as well, thus the data set should be used with extreme caution. The same applies to the other two data sets from yesterday. —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Author names

I'm coming to the conclusion that we need to vastly increase the use of stated as (P1932) qualifiers on author (P50), on items about works, and to encourage colleagues to copy vales from author name string (P2093), rather than discarding them when a P50 is added. Please see the discussion on this, at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Source MetaData#Author names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

+1 on this. - PKM (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting together an information page about reusing Wikidata data on other Wikimedia projects next week, please help/brain dump all your ideas

Hi all

I'm putting aside time next week to write up an information page on Wikidata for contributors to other Wikimedia projects who want to know more about/may have concerns about reusing Wikidata on other projects. I hope this will help people having the same discussions repeatedly and allay and address many of the concerns of users from other projects. I also hope it will convince some of them to contribute to Wikidata :)

I'm starting off with a list of common arguments for not using data from Wikidata on other Wikimedia projects and working my way back from there, please do take a look and add arguments, replies, links and any other information you think is useful. Doesn't need to be perfect, I'll tidy it up.

User:John_Cummings/Wikidata_in_Wikimedia_projects

Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)John

BNF

Can someone show me how to link the BNF for Paul Reimers (Q40813535) http://data.bnf.fr/14219714/paul_reimers/  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) at 24. 9. 2017, 00:24‎ (UTC).

you need to find Paul Reimers (Q40813535)'s BnF ID (P268), which can be done as follow from http://data.bnf.fr/14219714/paul_reimers/ :

Maxlath (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Maxlath: Do we capture the other link anywhere so we get the photograph? http://data.bnf.fr/14219714/paul_reimers/ --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_): no, pictures need to be on Wikimedia Commons (Q565) so that you can add a statement linking to it using the property image (P18). But if the picture is in the public domain, you can import it to Wikimedia Commons (Q565), and then link to it. -- Maxlath (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

How can I remove sitelink?

Sitelink to commons at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11832547 is wrong. How can I remove it? Using edit in "Other sites" section gives me option to add a new one at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:SetSiteLink/Q11832547 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This was blocking the attempt to correct Płaszów (Q11832547) to sitelink to c:Category:Płaszów. I have now resolved all of the above. Jheald (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Properties for magazines

Hello. I need some help with properties about a magazine (based on w:en:Template:Infobox magazine). I know we are not always have to have properties for every parameter of a template. I am just asking to find is we already have appropriate properties for each parameter.

  1. Should we use genre (P136) or main subject (P921)? (parameter category)
    Examples,
  2. Show we use country of origin (P495) or country (P17)?
  3. For editor should I use publisher (P123) ? And what about editor (P98) ?
  4. Any properties for staff writer and photographer?
  5. Any property for frequency?
  6. What about circulation, paid circulation, unpaid circulation, circulation year, total circulation?
  7. Is there a way to show firstdate (other than inception (P571) which I used for "founded"? And for finaldate and finalnumber?
  8. Property for company?

Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

John Vandenberg (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Aubrey (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Daniel Mietchen (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Micru (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC) DarTar (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Maximilianklein (talk) 00:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Mvolz (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy 22:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Mattsenate (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC) author  TomT0m / talk page JakobVoss (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Mahdimoqri (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Jsamwrites Dig.log Sic19 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Andreasmperu Nomen ad hoc Pete F (talk) 99of9 Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals Thank you! I was having similar doubts.

  1. genre (P136) when is an instance of magazine genre (Q21114848) or main subject (P921) when is a subject.
  2. I would lean towards country of origin (P495) because a magazine (Q41298) is a creative work (Q17537576); nevertheless, country (P17) would be a better option if magazine is also classed as an organization (Q43229) (point 8).
  3. publisher (P123) when referring to an organisation, and editor (P98) for a person.
  4. I've been using contributor(s) to the creative work (P767) with qualifier no label (P794) when needed.
  5. For frequency, there is publication interval (P2896).
  6. Only one I could find is number of subscribers (P3744), but it won't cover all.
  7. inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) are the best options, although not fully satisfying. Don't know how to treat magazines that have had closures and reopened on a later date.
  8. Don't undestand this one. But I came up with a problem: founded by (P112) and manager/director (P1037) seem quite useful, but they trigger a constraint violation because they should only by used for organisations; however, magazines are not classed as such. Maybe we need to change that. Andreasm háblame / just talk to me 23:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with

  1. genre (P136) when is an instance of magazine genre (Q21114848)
  2. I would prefer country (P17) (rather than country of origin (P495)), but in the end... both are acceptable.
  3. publisher (P123) when referring to an organisation
  4. no opinion
  5. publication interval (P2896) is adequate - no issue here
  6. we have a long way to go for this one - we should probably consult how the movies are handling audience
  7. inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) are the adequate. I agree that we need something different for magazines that have had closures and reopened on a later date.
  8. For company... could it be owned by (P127)?

--FocalPoint (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

For 2, "country of origin (P495)" is preferable; country (P17) implies that the magazine is not available outside that country. For 7 (especially multiple occurrences mentioned by FocalPoint), consider also described at URL (P973). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
We also have Wikidata:Property proposal/readership going on. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
For 8 I would be against having to split magazines and the organization that runs a magazine. If the only purpose of an organization is to run a single magazin, the magazine and the organization can better be identified by one item. Better use constraints more flexible if needed. -- JakobVoss (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #279

Warden of Sing Sing

I want to create an instance of a position called "Warden of Sing Sing". Should I use the Q7969149 which describes the Wikipedia entry for the list of wardens, or create something new? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You should create a new position item, and link that to the Wardens page with has list (P2354). The list can then also point back to your new item using is a list of (P360). --Oravrattas (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done

Item as object in Lua

In Lua, it's not possible to retrieve where an entity is an object, e.g. to get the items with subclass of (P279)  offspring (Q239526), is it? Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And nobody knows whether or when it will. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
There is also phab:T167521 which requests SPARQL querying from Lua. Lydia's comment indicates that this will probably not be easy to implement. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both! I suspected it. Hopefully it will! And: Vorfreude ist die schönste Freude! :) --Marsupium (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Q41000000

Where is no label (Q41000000)? --Bigbossfarin (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Probably skipped. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I am unsure about how to phrase it, but I added the date into the current news. Totodu74 (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

label list javascript

anyone care to take ownership, explain the javascript routine now required to edit labels? how do i turn it off? the load time is so long, i will be suspending editing labels, until it is fixed. Slowking4 (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree this bug is making it a lot harder to improve labels, descriptions and aliases. − Pintoch (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you please clarify what's wrong, with steps to reproduce provided? Has it been always around or did it occur first recently? Matěj Suchánek (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify more? I had some experience with slow loading times, but cleaning-up userscripts helped. In my case Mxn overpass was the largest "resource eater".--Jklamo (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Broken import

Many values of SIMC place ID (P4046) have spurious {{r|Dz.U. 2013}}, result of import error (it was a reference for the code). It is too popular to fix manually, maybe somebody can fix it using some automation? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Example of edit necessary to fix it: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q4712314&diff=566320295&oldid=552317786 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is possible; I am looking into this and try to get it done with one edit per item. —MisterSynergy (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, PAWS is not operational right now for me. If nobody else volunteers, I have to wait at least until this evening. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: this is done now. There are still a couple of cases that need correction, but the problem is a different one (wrong ID that are not exactly seven digits long). You can find worklists at Property talk:P4046 and Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P4046 (updates only once daily, with some delay). Please take over, and don’t hesitate to ask me in case of questions! Regards, MisterSynergy (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@MisterSynergy: Thanks! I used SPARQL query linked from Property talk:P4046 to check that no problem of this type remain and fix some other malformed identifiers. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Q2434238 P31

What is the correct instance of (P31) for heritage (Q2434238) - I removed one that was present as it ended classifying Powderham Castle (Q2106892) as an event. But I am unsure what would be the correct P31 value for that entry Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The meaning of the english word "heritage" (and many of its translations in other languages) is so manyfold that this category shouldn't even exist. For one, is it only physical heritage (buildings etc.) or a broader sense (including traditions)? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I am tempted sometimes to tag some entries as "use solely for interwiki storage, should not be used to classify anything" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Bad "Tornedalen Finnish" - 3 problems

I have 3 minor problems:

  • Why does it show "Tornedalen Finnish" on every page? I don't speak it and I've never selected it. How can I disable it, or at least enable those languages I am interested in?
  • I can't edit some pages, for example Q1. Why?
  • On some other pages, I can edit fields, but how do I add a language?

Taylor 49 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: I also used to have "Tornedalen Finnish" when I edited here, since my IP is related to an area in northern Sweden, where some people speak Meänkieli. (They are not many exactly where I live, but I have met some.) By adding the #babel-parser to your user-page (see my user page for example) you can tell the system that you prefer other languages. There is a special gadget "LabelLister" that let you edit any language, but you can probably edit the languages you prefer when you have added your #babel-parser. And, no, I cannot see why you shouldn't be able to edit Q1. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Thanks. Done! Now "Tornedalen Finnish" is gone and I can see my languages. "since my IP is related to an area" this is AFAIK called geo-blocking and a very bad idea. Is there an official place where one can request it to be removed? But I still can't edit Q1 and I can't add languages on those pages that I can edit. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not aware of that you can block Wikibase from accessing that information. But that information is on the other hand, not public visible for all of us. That is only limited to a small group of Stewards and a few other users with the ability to see such information. And they are only allowed to look for it under special circumstances. So, nobody here would know anything about your location except if you tell us.
Does you browser allow javascript? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You can't edit Universe (Q1) because it is semi-protected. Only (auto-)confirmed user can edit it. You will become autoconfirmed when you have 50 edits on Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: "this is AFAIK called geo-blocking" - it is rather geolocation (with babel override way too hidden) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

How can I note that object is "dissolved, abolished or demolished" but it is not demolished?

dissolved, abolished or demolished (P576) on Auschwitz concentration camp (Q7341) is correct - but how can I note that buildings remained and are now used as an museum?

I found replaced by (P1366) but it may be applied also for situations where feature was completely destroyed and new is in the same place.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Use significant event (P793) instead, with a suitable qualifier; or as a qualifier of P576. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Is there a property "ruins still remain" or "ruins remained till X"? Parsing significant event (P793) would be obnoxious (even during editing I have trouble to find suitable qualifier for "closed, buildings not destroyed") Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I prefer to use P31 with timestamps. "P31:Chuch/end date 14th century" "P31:ruin of a church/start date 14th century". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I edited Auschwitz concentration camp (Q7341) - is this style of data storage OK? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
What about use (P366)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Something may be present and no longer used - for example abandoned building Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

It's also illogical that properties like "former church" are a subclass of "former building". A former church may be a theatre now, a former building must be a ruin or demolished. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. And additionally, a building used as a church does not have to be a church building - it could also be a former factory or something. One has to strictly discriminate between the building type, usage and status. We went through this issues in german wikipedia category system in the last years, so there is a lot of experience with this kind of stuff. Steak (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Property migration tool

At WD:PFD we often conclude discussions with the suggestion "deprecate, migrate, and delete". Is there an existing tool for performing this sort of action, i.e.:

  1. Run a Wikidata SPARQL query to extract items that need changing
  2. Automatically generate a list of appropriate edits
  3. Then the user can review and commit each edit?

Deryck Chan (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: It seems like what you're describing would be what Petscan could do - see the "Other sources" tab where you can paste in a SPARQL query to generate a list of Q numbers. Then you can choose the properties to set or unset (like a Quickstatement) and click on "Process commands." See this example for a list of cats: [9]. Would that fit your needs? -- Fuzheado (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't respect references and qualifiers, I think. I would love to replace properties while retaining qualifiers and references. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Correct. If you want to do something more interactive, you'd have to use something like pywikibot. If it's not too complicated, and you're not into Python, you could try using the m:Wikipedia Tools for Google Spreadsheets and extract the statements into spreadsheet cells, and use formulas to create Quickstatements for what you want to add/delete. -- Fuzheado (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuzheado and Sjoerd. I agree with Sjoerd that Petscan isn't sufficient because it doesn't respect qualifiers (but most of our task is migrating some property-qualifier combination to a different property-qualifier combination, keeping others unchanged). PAWS is broken at the moment so let's see if that gets fixed. I'll try Google Sheets another time. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up: 100K item import

I am now beginning a ~100K item creation batch, for items that have Bavarian monument authority ID (P4244) (also see talk page there) on German Wikipedia list pages. The batch status can be seen here, and admins can stop it there as well (I hope). If there is an issue, let me know immediately. --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And, of course, it already broke... Someone please delete these blank items:

Thanks, sorry about that! --Magnus Manske (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Nuked. Have luck with the task, although I'm wondering if this would need approval first. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! The problem seems to have vanished for a smaller test set, not sure why. I will restart item creation later, but unless there is heavy objection, Bavarian monument authority ID (P4244) was created with this in mind at some point; might as well be now... --Magnus Manske (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems logical then, thanks! Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to request feedback at Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Bot before doing such a large import (especially if it is creating so many items)? Even if you technically do not need a bot flag. Maybe it would be worth having some dialog in QuickStatements asking the user to request feedback for imports which are larger than a certain threshold (or contain a large number of item creations)? (I mean, just a checkbox "I have requested feedback on Wikidata and others Wikidatans support this import", or something along these lines… nothing that is actually binding!) − Pintoch (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I have talked about it on the property talk page, and here. Opening a "third front" seems superfluous, let alone confusing as to comments. I have started a pilot with ~5K new entries to see how it goes. But given the 40M items here, my 100K are <0.25%, and they are noteworthy by default. --Magnus Manske (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Your status update, starting yesterday, at Property talk:P4244#Extraction running is not really a talk about the import, Magnus. --Succu (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Magnus, I was not aware of the discussion on this talk page. That being said, may I suggest that your notice on Project chat could have been a bit more useful if you had let people a bit of time to comment, and ideally a few sample edits to show what your import is doing! Just asking people to get ready to delete things if your import goes wrong is not super useful. Anyway, my point is not really about this particular import: I think Wikidata lacks tools to review batches of edits like these, ideally before the edits are performed. This is an important piece of infrastructure that I find really overdue, together with the other issues mentioned at http://blog.hatnote.com/post/161358369742/wikicite-2017-and-the-7-features-wikidata-needs . I am working on some of these issues, but it's a big task and it would be great to have more people on board. − Pintoch (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Cheers Pintoch, the backend to review batches through my QuickStatements tool exists, but I need to rewrite the front-end, which could include reviewing functions, or maybe performing edits on a test site first. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Awesome! Looking forward to that! − Pintoch (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
my 2ct: there are much larger imports being done, and I am not sure whether there were always formal requests first. From my experience it would be okay to import some 100k new items, once the identifier property has been discussed and created (assuming that the imported data has a proper license). However I’d expect that the imported data has a quality level that does not require much correction or further input from the broader community. So I’m fine with it. —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

After a successful 5K test import, I have started the full import. Batch run is here, admins should be able to stop it in case of emergency. Otherwise, email or Twitter me in case of urgent issues. --Magnus Manske (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a comment (as the property creator who made this property available) - I believe most (all?) of these items were listed on dewiki list pages, so their creation definitely fills a structural need and wasn't unexpected, even though most would not have their own dewiki sitelinks. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

QuickStatementsBot creating duplicates

Q41045880 and Q41046769 both with exactly nine edits, making the same claims, in same order. 85.182.83.61 20:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

→ ← Merged. Do you see more cases? —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Please make your opinion if taxi (Q82650) should go against oxford dictionary

Talk:Q82650

So far 2 users disrespected references, but didn't provide any sources for their claims.

Separate item for taxi as service: taxi service (Q41222493)

I don't have affiliation with these companies, it was "taxi service" and "taxi industry".

More results can be crawled from yellow pages: https://www.yellowpages.com.au/see/taxi-cabs listed in "Yellow Pages Transport & Cargo Services Taxi"


It can be that I'm with rest of the world is wrong and 2 users are right don't need to discuss anything. d1g (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Database rights and copyrightability of information

Would it be against US copyright law to import without explicit permission e.g. Alexa rankings of websites mentioned in Wikipedia articles, or the full/partial charting history of every musical work with a Wikidata item, into Wikidata? w:en:Wikipedia:Copyright in lists states that a list based on data may be ineligible for copyright protection, but this might be in a legal grey area since the methodology and raw data are not entirely public. Similar has already been done to a minor extent (without any legal threats or takedown notices, AFAIK); a bot used to update Alexa rankings monthly on the English Wikipedia until it malfunctioned in 2014 and was blocked, and there are several hundred lists (also on enwiki) showing the top 10 positions of various singles charts for the past several years or decades. Jc86035 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

See also: meta:Wikilegal/Database Rights. —MisterSynergy (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

(cont) Bad "Tornedalen Finnish" - 3 problems (1 left)

I have 3 minor problems:

  • Why does it show "Tornedalen Finnish" on every page? I don't speak it and I've never selected it. How can I disable it, or at least enable those languages I am interested in?
  • I can't edit some pages, for example Q1. Why?
  • On some other pages, I can edit fields, but how do I add a language?

Taylor 49 (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: I also used to have "Tornedalen Finnish" when I edited here, since my IP is related to an area in northern Sweden, where some people speak Meänkieli. (They are not many exactly where I live, but I have met some.) By adding the #babel-parser to your user-page (see my user page for example) you can tell the system that you prefer other languages. There is a special gadget "LabelLister" that let you edit any language, but you can probably edit the languages you prefer when you have added your #babel-parser. And, no, I cannot see why you shouldn't be able to edit Q1. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Innocent bystander: Thanks. Done! Now "Tornedalen Finnish" is gone and I can see my languages. "since my IP is related to an area" this is AFAIK called geo-blocking and a very bad idea. Is there an official place where one can request it to be removed? But I still can't edit Q1 and I can't add languages on those pages that I can edit. Taylor 49 (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not aware of that you can block Wikibase from accessing that information. But that information is on the other hand, not public visible for all of us. That is only limited to a small group of Stewards and a few other users with the ability to see such information. And they are only allowed to look for it under special circumstances. So, nobody here would know anything about your location except if you tell us.
Does you browser allow javascript? -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
You can't edit Universe (Q1) because it is semi-protected. Only (auto-)confirmed user can edit it. You will become autoconfirmed when you have 50 edits on Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: "this is AFAIK called geo-blocking" - it is rather geolocation (with babel override way too hidden) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pasleim:
> can't edit Universe (Q1) because it is semi-protected
Thanks ... why isn't this fact visible on the page itself?
> become autoconfirmed when you have 50 edits on Wikidata
COOL ... I have 5'000 edits elsewhere ;-)
One problem left: how can I add a language ?  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taylor 49 (talk • contribs) at 5. 10. 2017, 12:54‎ (UTC).

Sailplane-type use, speed and weight

I'm working on a general infobox for sailplanes; it would benefit from standards for usage, speed and weight-parameters. As a testcase I've been using Rolladen-Schneider LS4 (Q544661).

  • A sailplane-type has general uses; cross-country, competition, acrobatics or just local (leisure) flight. Is it OK to use use (P366) to indicate general uses? If not, where should it go? (Gliders used in competition should also have competition class (P2094).)
  • There will be different masses stated under mass (P2067) such as empty/dry mass, maximum-takeoff-weight or maximum ballast. How should those be qualified?
  • Likewise with speed (P2052) - see an extensive list at V speeds (en) - how do we qualify them?

13 hrs later: Found Project Aviation - Properties which doesn't offer an answer.

Poul G (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe of (P642) could be used for both mass and speeds (example from memory):
mass (P2067):
525 kg
of (P642) maximum takeoff weight (Q938476)
180 kg
of (P642) ballast (Q4851537)
of (P642) (LS4a)
Poul G (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a separate wikidata entry about database and identifier?

TERYT code (Q2635117) - main wikipedia article (and presumably also other) are about TERYT database, not about TERYT identifier. "Imported from TERYT code" like in Za Górą (Q28676127) is also fairly stupid. Should we create separate entry for identifier and database? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, there are a lot of cases where the same identifier is used in different databases, so if we keep only one type of item it should be databases (otherwise our references will be very imprecise). But then, we do have some Wikipedia articles about identifiers (such as en:Digital_object_identifier or en:ISNI), so the items corresponding to these articles have to be instance of (P31) some class about identifiers, not databases. So I don't really see how we could conflate these two concepts. I think the solution for Za Górą (Q28676127) will be easier once we have constraint violation reports for references: then, it will be easy to flag "imported from TERYT code" as invalid. − Pintoch (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there should be a separate item for the identifier. Then we can fix the numerous, nonsensical, uses of subject item of this property (P1629) = [database], and even of subject item of this property (P1629) = [database owner]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
What is preferable - change definition of TERYT code (Q2635117) to "database" (correctly describes wikipedia article) or create a new entry for "TERYT database" and move Wikipedia links there? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Organization Identifier Working Group: Feedback requested

The "Organization Identifier Working Group" ( a joint effort by Crossref, DataCite and ORCID) has released for public comment its findings and recommendations for governance and product requirements, for an open (as in Open Definition (Q21605525)) PID for organisations of all types.

Since this is something we are likely to use (and, indeed, find very useful) in Wikidata, some of you may wish to give feedback. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

contributor(s) to the creative work (P767) usage at Erik van Blokland (Q20630585)

I am doing a constraints/violation clean-up of Property:P767 and the usage at Erik van Blokland (Q20630585) doesn't clearly fit the criteria set. I am here seeking opinion on whether we should remove that usage, or we should conceptually expand the constraints currently in place to allow wider scope that seems to still sit within the English description. Alternatively someone may have a better set of property/item for this example. Thanks for feedback.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Further, this property has a broader usage than was envisaged, so if we wish to keep it purer to the original view, we should be looking to provide alternatives by clarifying the text we use, and to look to clarify what are the alternative pairs to use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If Erik van Blokland (Q20630585) should be linked with Unified Font Object (Q17640301), then by using the inverse property of contributor(s) to the creative work (P767): contributed to creative work (P3919) --Pasleim (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
My question is should it be linked or not with that property? Is there a better set of properties? To me the reverse doesn't work.

I would also argue that there is not a one to one use of these properties P767 and P3919. For example, we would use contributed to creative work (P3919) where someone wrote an article that appeared in Nature (Q180445) though we would be mad to try and capture every one who contributed to Nature using contributor(s) to the creative work (P767) .  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Language fallback not working with #babel template?

The #babel template doesn't seem to be working properly for me, at least for the "Label/Description/Also known as" box. I've been using it for about a year and a half, and it would always show all the language I have listed. But I just took two months off, and now that I'm back, only my top two languages show up (as well as Burmese and Shan, which I can't read at all). -- Irn (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC) (Please ping me when responding.)

Hm, this reminds me of Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2017/09#Adding labels, so perhaps there was something that broke this. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, that does seem to be the same problem. -- Irn (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Irn: This should be fixed now, I did a null edit to your user page (clicked "edit" and saved the page without changing anything). Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hoo man: That seems to have worked! Thank you so much! (Sometimes I really don't understand how these things work...) Cheers, -- irn (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
@Hoo man, Matěj Suchánek: I just had the same question from a Norwegian user with the same problem. So I think this is potentially a much bigger issue than the few who actually ask. Maybe someone should run touch.py on all userpages? I can do that, surely it can't be controversial? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, go ahead. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
It is running now. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

way to label a former religion

There's a "former Mormon" category on Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is a way to add that (sourced) data to a person. I thought that one way would be to define "start time" and "end time" to the religion statement, which I did with William Shunn as a test case. Is there any precedent for this kind of thing? thanks. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Using "start time" and "end time" is the way to go. ChristianKl (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thanks Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
We do the same thing for nationality when one changes citizenship and even residence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Coach vs player

Is a coach a "member of a sports team"? or are only the players? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

If items about coaches use member of sports team (P54), they should at least have a qualifier subject has role (P2868) coach (Q41583). There may be other properties available for manager/coach positions, but unfortunately employer (P108) does not always fit. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I think the consensus from a recent properties for creation discussion was to make items to use with position held (P39). Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Items such as manager of VfL Wolfsburg (Q20089909)? Looks odd, tbh… —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Sjoerddebruin: Do you have a pointer to that discussion? Currently position held (P39) is scoped to public office, representing a mandate (Q845436) (this is much more obvious in the labels for some languages than others). Expanding that to sports positions would be a rather large change. --Oravrattas (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikidata:Property proposal/head coach of looks related. —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

When does a Wikipedia entry get a Wikidata entry?

When does a Wikipedia entry get a Wikidata entry? Is it done by a bot? Does it look to see if there is a match already in our data set, and then ask a human to see if it is a match? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bots and other tools create one if it hasn't been connected for some longer time (usually at least two weeks). Some bots also check for similar pages like EmausBot. For humans, there is Duplicity tool. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia Movement Strategy phase 2, and a goodbye

Hello,

As phase one of the Wikimedia movement strategy process nears its close with the strategic direction being finalized, my contractor role as a coordinator is ending too. I am returning to my normal role as a volunteer (Tar Lócesilion) and wanted to thank you all for your participation in the process.

The strategic direction should be finalized on Meta late this weekend. The planning and designing of phase 2 of the strategy process will start in November. The next phase will again offer many opportunities to participate and discuss the future of our movement, and will focus on roles, resources, and responsibilities.

Thank you, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)