Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2018/08

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Wrong Map showing in Commons Category

From an OTRS message (Ticket#2018080110008255) - the category c:Category:Cala Mitjana, Menorca has the wrong map. The poster stated "The Cala Mitjana in Menorca is located at 39.9345N, 3.9728E, but the map that is displayed on the page shows the Cala Mitjana in Mallorca, at 39.7522N, 3.4139E." I zoomed out the map and it is indeed showing the wrong island. I'm not sure how to fix this one. Can someone help here? Thanks in advance. Ronhjones (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Should now be fixed. There were two sets of coordinates, one good, one bad. I've deprecated the bad one. - Jmabel (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Special:Nearby message "Wikidata cannot determine your location. Please try again with a better signal."

When trying to use Special:Nearby under Firefox, I have recently been getting this error message. Initially, I thought that this might indeed be a connectivity issue (I use the feature most commonly while traveling on trains) but then I noticed that nearby items display just fine under Chrome on the same machine. I had a look at the Firefox cookies for Wikidata but could not find any that would be the obvious culprit here. I also looked at Phabricator, where T125820 seems to be closely related but separate. Anyone got a hint what the problem is here, and how to fix it? Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: Some sentences that I don't know if violating our privacy policy or not: Which ISP are you using? It's likely in somewhat point that some ISP suppressed this function. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
If you haven't already, check your location settings under "about:preferences#privacy" in Firefox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for thinking along with me. I have checked the Firefox privacy settings, and I don't think it's an individual ISP since I have seen this behaviour in a number of locations in several countries. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I find it works if I'm logged into a Google account, and doesn't work if I log out. Presumably because it's using a Google API. Ghouston (talk) 02:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Although by "works", I'm getting a location a few hundred kilometres away that I visited last week, which was probably the last time I logged into the Google account on a phone. Ghouston (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

List of atheists

Should Lists of atheists (Q49647) have the value of its is a list of (P360) set to atheist (Q15934597); or to human (Q5) qualified as religion (P140)=atheism (Q7066)?

I see two issues with the latter:

  • atheism is not a religion
  • on a general note, we should have lists shown as comprising the most specific available subject, not a generic one with a qualifier

yet I have been reverted on this matter, by User:Infovarius, more than once. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Needless to say, due to disagreement about whether atheism is a religion or not, some items are coded with religion = atheism (violating a constraint), and some are coded with religion = <no value>. Whether atheism is the same as absence of religion can also be debated. There's some discussion at Property_talk:P140 which I haven't read. Ghouston (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
People's opinions are not generally recorded. If somebody is known to be a member of a particular political party then there's a statement for it, but if they just wrote on a blog somewhere that they supported a particular candidate, there's no place for it. For religion, if somebody has publicly stated that they don't practice any religion, then religion = <no value>, but perhaps there's no need to record that they say they are an atheist unless in the context of joining a particular atheist organization, or being active in a particular movement. Ghouston (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not to treat atheism as a religion is very complicated. Summarizing some relevant points:
  • Not all religions are belief-based, or even have associated beliefs. There are millions of atheists who are religious and millions of theists who are irreligious. See Nontheistic religion, Spiritual but not religious on Wikipedia. Atheism is neither synonymous with nor a subcategory of irreligion.
  • Atheism, strictly defined, is exclusively a belief, like monotheism, agnosticism, polytheism, etc. Formally, it has no further communal, ritual, broader philosophical, moral, organizational, or social aspects. As a result, many would further hesitate to categorize it as a religion.
  • Some definitions of "religion" are extended so far as to include all beliefs regarding spiritual matters. This would thus include atheism.
  • In certain societies, "atheist" as a designation has been placed firmly within the scope of the category of religions. The question "What religion, if any, are you?" could be answered by "I'm an atheist", without it seeming like a complete non-sequitur at all. This is not simply because in those societies all religious people are theistic and all irreligious are atheistic; in some of the same societies, "none/nothing in particular", "atheist", and "agnostic" are all common answers that are considered very different. Atheism is often taken to be a separate religious category by both its adherents and others.
  • All proposed solutions involving label changes have substantial consequences: "religious affiliation", "religious stance", "religious position", "religious attitude", "attitude toward religion" all exclude certain things which could be categorized as "religion".
  • "Atheism" is defined very differently by different people, debatably including, for example, agnosticism. See w:Atheism#Definitions and types.
  • To confuse things even more, there's only a moderate level of overlap between any of the conventional definitions of atheist and how people actually use the term as identification. In the United States, only one third of people who don't believe in G-d identify as atheists, and 8% of self-identified atheists believe in G-d. (See Pew research, point 4.)
  • Sources often do not state that "the person's religion is X", they just say "the person is X", so we can't just push the decision to the sources on a case-by-case basis.
I'm leaning weakly towards counting it as a religion. We've done similar things in the past for purposes of convenience of categorization. --Yair rand (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a good summary of the problems. There's also the point that people's religious opinions can change over time, and they can say different things in different interviews. point in time (P585) qualifiers may often be needed. There's always the concept adopted for languages spoken, written or signed (P1412), just expand the label to encompass all the possibilities (I think Andy Mabbett already knows about this one). Ghouston (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As a possible solution, instead of using the concept of "religion", you could use the concept of life stance (Q1378860), which includes religion, and non-religion.--Micru (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We could have a property for "supports" and one for "opposes", to allow the listing of all kinds of random things. Perhaps we'd know what football team somebody supports or who they voted for in 2006. It's not much different to listing religious views. Ghouston (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Book title not italicized and given in English, not French?

I just added The illegal wars of NATO (Q55839635) to w:Daniele Ganser#Publications. I see two problems:

  1. This is a book title, which appeared NOT italicized. If I want this title italicized, do I have to enter it directly and not use Wikicite?
  2. The book is in French, but the display shows only my English-language translation of the French title.

Suggestions? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

See my response to you under #How to enter a book review?, above. Also, you entered (on en.Wikipedia): {{Q|Q55839635}}, when I think you meant to enter {{Cite Q|Q55839635}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Independents from Hawaiʻi

Does anyone understand what is going on with entries like Tūnīaneaīa (Q55870197) and Mūazanaūawa (Q55870195). I'm seeing a lot of entries like this come in that just have a site link to the Hawaiʻian Wikipedia and a instance of (P31) link to independent (Q2415493). I asked about them here, but no response. Are these humans? @T8 Expresso, 179.236.72.242: Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Related discussion @Kam Solusar, Pigsonthewing: Bovlb (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I didn't post over on the Hawaiian WP, since it looked pretty much dead and the last post on that page was in 2014. I asked @T8_Expresso: on their WD talk page for help, since they were active on both projects recently, but got no response so far unfortunately. --Kam Solusar (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed property for Instagram tags

Wikidata:Property proposal/Instagram_tag was closed as "not done", because "there were no examples provided of official sources endorsing instagram tags". Such endorsement is not a requirement for property proposals (and evidence of it was not even asked for, in the discussion). Furthermore, there were more supports than objections, with the three objections being stated on the basis of the data-type, rather than objections to a property in principle. None of the supporters objected to the proposed datatype.

For those reasons, I have asked the closer, User:Micru, three times to reopen it, but they have refused, expressing his own partisan view on the datatype. The proposal should be reopened forthwith, so that it can be reviewed by someone else, with a neutral approach and without bogus criteria. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I will agree with you that this was closed prematurely—not saying that it should be created at this point, though. I will reopen this within the next two hours, @Pigsonthewing:, once I get to a computer. Mahir256 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Nudge. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: As you have said below, this discussion has not been resolved. I am thus respecting Micru’s request that a clear outcome be achieved here first before reopening the proposal. (To be clear, if no admin had asked me to hold off on it within the two-hour window, I would gladly have reopened it then.) Mahir256 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Not sure. It is an old proposal.
--- Jura 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256: Wait to reopen the proposal until this conversation reaches a clear outcome. Micru (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question given the various comments of the participants, what outcome would you consider appropriate?
    --- Jura 14:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
There were legitimate concerns raised about this property proposal, mainly that Instagram tags are not curated, not sourced, and not endorsed by anyone, and as a result I believe this should not be used as an external identifier. I suggested Andy to start a new proposal with data type "string", same as property Twitter hashtag (P2572).
The discussion was stalled since January, and while the number of support/opposition can give an indication about the general perception of a property, it is never enough to justify by itself the creation of a property. I feel attacked by Andy questioning my integrity as property creator just because the outcome was not in his favor. Micru (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Restored from the archives, as unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Wonder who's to blame for that. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am again restoring this unresolved issue from the archives; absent agreement here, the property proposal should be reinstated so that debate can be concluded there in the proper manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question given the various comments of the participants, what outcome would you consider appropriate?
    --- Jura 11:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • (somehow I thought only admins were property creators back in April...) The issues with the tag properties we have proposed are IMO not at all specific to Instagram—in other words, at this point reopening this proposal does not in itself help resolve these issues—and given that the current active tag proposals pertain to Gfycat and Flickr, these issues ought to be resolved on either of those proposals as long as no property creator has closed them. (@Micru, ArthurPSmith, Pintoch: If you decide to close either of the current active proposals at any point, please start an RfC with respect to tags before closing them so that discussion about these issues can continue more generally.) I would like to adapt what I said on the second of the current active proposals more generally here, though: until we all agree to recast Twitter hashtag (P2572) as an external identifier, I generally support either property's creation as a string; on the worthiness of these properties' inclusion, I sometimes wonder, given many of the examples presented on those proposals and elsewhere, whether a single unified 'tag' property is in order, seeing as most of them pertain to exactly the same topic whether viewed on Twitter, Instagram, Gfycat, or Flickr. Mahir256 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
    • There are 21 open RfCs, and I doubt that it would help opening a 22nd. Personally I am interested in knowing Andy's answer to Jura's question, as this seems to be a topic that bothers him for some reason, and I would like to understand better his reasoning.--Micru (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
      • "examples [...] of official sources endorsing instagram tags" is not a requirement for property creation. You should reopen the proposal which you improperly closed stating lack of them as you sole reason for doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
        • @Pigsonthewing: As it has been explained in other places there are more reasons for not creating tag properties. Tags are not curated and include many elements that do not belong to the category, and they do not desambiguate concepts. For instance "train" has a mixture of trains, people training, and images totally unrelated. Even basic concepts like "river" contains mostly things that are not a river. Do you really want to keep persevering on this?--Micru (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
          • As I have explained before; you are entitled to have your opinion on the merits of the proposed property. You are not entitled to "super vote" and close the proposal based on those opinions; much less using an invented rationale. Reopen the proposal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
            • As it is now there are no guidelines regulating the closure of property proposals, so it is left to property creators to decide how, when, and why to close a proposal. Of course this situation can be changed in future proposal closures, as you can propose how or under which circumstance a proposal can be closed in the corresponding RfC.--Micru (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
              • Are you arguing that you are entitled to "super vote" and close a proposal based on your personal opinions, or to impose arbitrary criteria like requiring "examples of official sources endorsing instagram tags", or both? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
                • I'm saying that "As it is now there are no guidelines regulating the closure of property proposals, so it is left to property creators to decide how, when, and why to close a proposal." If you feel that additional criteria are needed, please feel free to propose them.--Micru (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Will someone please reopen this wrongly-closed proposal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I think my question still remains. Without that, I don't see what re-opening could help.
    --- Jura 09:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with the proposal being reopened by someone who is not Jura. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
      • The proposal needed to be closed anyways. If it's just to be closed with the same outcome, you are just wasting everyone's time. Try to formulate a constructive conclusion for the discussion based on people's input.
        --- Jura 12:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

http://fr.tekken.wikia.com

ΛΧΣ21 Vacation9 John F. Lewis (talk) Bene* talk #Reaper (talk) Josve05a (talk) Chris Mason (talk) FunPika Arthena (talk) Wangxuan8331800 (talk) Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) Zerabat (talk) Nicereddy (talk) Syum90 (talk) DrakeCaiman (talk) --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) Andreasburmeister (talk) Danrok (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Macrike (talk) Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC) --Zache (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Mohammed Adam (T) SharkD  Talk  06:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC) ZebaX2010 (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC) Sight Contamination (talk) Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Santer (talk) Cloaker416 (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC) Diggr (talk) 08:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Harsh Rathod Poke me! 09:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Kirilloparma (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Sir Lothar (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Video games Hello.I suggest a new property for this site to be suggested by someone who is expert in French language and the field of games.Thanks --David (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For which elements on that site would you want a property? The only elements I see are the character (some ~100 of them), but I don’t think this warrants a property. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: There are several articles about everything related to the series. Thank you --David (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Like #Linking to Wikia Fandom pages, use described at URL (P973). Matěj Suchánek (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you please elaborate? What is it exactly that you want a property for? Harsh Rathod Poke me! 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harshrathod50: Any page containing useful information on that site.Thank you --David (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Then what is the need for property, you can create the page for yourself. I also play Tekken but didn't find anything unusual on the page after which you've named this discussion. There is no sense of creating any property because I fear there are no more than hundred characters in the entire roster of Tekken franchise. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 17:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: David, you can use Wikia wiki ID (P4073) to connect the pages on http://fr.tekken.wikia.com to the items here. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 15:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Dubious citizenships

I've noticed a surprising number of people with country of citizenship (P27) countries that did not exist during their lifetimes. United Kingdom (Q145) came into existence in 1927, but there are nearly a thousand results for individuals with that country of citizenship (P27) with death years before 1927. (This query could be refined to take account of death dates with century-level precision).

SELECT DISTINCT ?citizen ?citizenLabel WHERE {
?citizen wdt:P27 wd:Q145; wdt:P570 ?death FILTER(YEAR(?death) < 1927).
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en"}
}

Try it!

If a person lived between 1801 and 1927, then the country of citizenship (P27) probably should be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193). If they lived between 1707 and 1801, their country of citizenship (P27) is probably Kingdom of Great Britain (Q161885). This could be fixed with a bulk edit, but I'm not sure how to do it myself in a way that preserves the qualifiers and references on the statements. I suspect that there will be similar problems with states like Germany (Q183) (inception (P571) 1949), Italy (Q38) (inception (P571) 1946), and India (Q668) (inception (P571) 1947). To be fair, I see the same kind of errors in some academic databases, but I think it's good for us to aim for high accuracy, so any help is welcome fixing these properties. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Property_talk:P27#Multiple_UK_values_-_reality_check_pls. Multichill (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
@MartinPoulter: I know for a fact that @Bodhisattwa: had fixed most, if not all, of the India cases; whether or not this preserved appropriate qualifiers and references I'm not as certain of (a quick look at the relevant contribution history suggests that if anything was lost, it was most often a imported from Wikimedia project (P143) qualifier), but in any case bulk edits are definitely in order. Mahir256 (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I've amended a few tens of thousands of UK P27s in recent times, and opened a discussion on talk P27, here. Depressingly though there is not consensus that the job should be done at all - people like Ghouston seem to want to confect a dummy UK to cover the various UK states, which for me makes no sense whatsoever and is an insult to everything that I think wikidata is about. iirc, where I left it, was the set of (wrong) UK P27s whch had references, since the job of moving the citizenship to the appropriate value without losing the reference information, takes that much longer. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I find it highly dubious to claim that the UK pre-1927 and post-1927 are completely different states with different citizenships. There's more continuity than discontinuity. The sitelinked article en:United Kingdom doesn't even mention 1927. But I said that already at the other discussion. Ghouston (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
And then there's this: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q216477&diff=next&oldid=705460740. I had deprecated a statement from the Russian Wikipedia that is almost certainly false (Chief Seattle (Q216477) died long before it was common for a Native American to have U.S. citizenship) but someone apparently felt "possibly invalid entry requiring further references" was too strong and changed it to "unconfirmed". - Jmabel (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of statements that I do find dubious. Modifying the query above shows that there are 4293 people who died before 1949, but somehow obtained Australian citizenship, which wasn't created until 1949. Cases of anachronism (Q189203)? Ghouston (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
When, Ghouston, your best evidence that 'nothing really happened here' is a badly written wikipedia article, and your major contribution is to say 'I can't be bothered to work out for which period my confected UK should cover' ... I think we're entitled to weigh your argument and find it wanting. It is incontrovertable that the legal name of the state changed in 1927, per w:en:Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927. It is incontrovertable that UKians extant in 1926 were citizens (or subjects) of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193). They even had their own passports - File:UK passport 1924.JPG - confirming the country of which they were citizens/subjects. It is incontrovertable that UKians extant in 1928 were citizens (or subjects) of United Kingdom (Q145). They had passports, too - File:UK Passport Pre 88 change.jpg - confirming the country of which they were citizens/subjects. It is incontrovertable that UKians born after 1927 were not citizens of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) because a state of that name did not exist in their lifetime. It is incontrovertable that UKians who died before 1927 were not citizens of United Kingdom (Q145) because a state of that name did not exist in their lifetime. Would it be all the same to you if we went with facts like these rather than your gut feeling? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't consider a change to the name of a state to be the same as the creation of a "new" state. There's more continuity than discontinuity. Ghouston (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
By the way, even if the enwiki article is "badly written" for recognising a UK that dates back before 1927, we still need a wikidata item to sitelink it to. Either United Kingdom (Q145) needs an earlier inception date, or the article should be sitelinked to a different item. Ghouston (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Name changes can be easily dealt with on a single item, by using multiple official name (P1448) with start and end time qualifiers. Ghouston (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking the population of the 32 counties of Ireland probably thought it was more than a name change (even if the name change took 5 years). I'm thinking there is some point to Q145#P571 and Q174193#P576. You don't have a whole lot going for your argument beyond "I don't consider" and "I'm dubious". I'll leave it here: if you are not going to merge Q145 and Q174193, then I'm going to presume that we have items for a couple of time-limited states, and continue to work towards person items having P27s that are logically consistent with the existence of Q145 and Q174193. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I think Ghouston has a point. The government of the United Kingdom of GB/NI in 1928 is the same entity as the government of the United Kingdom of GB/I in 1926, other than in name and in territory. 1927 is also a somewhat arbitrary cutoff point, since it is based on the Act of Parliament that renamed the country rather than the territorial change. I don't know whether it would make sense to use United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Q174193) as an item for "the UK between 1801 and 1928" and United Kingdom (Q145) as "the UK, the government created in 1801"; this would be useful for former countries where there is a legal successor state, such as Serbia and Montenegro (Q37024) (which would then be "Serbia between 1992 and 2006"). Either item could then be used for country of citizenship as appropriate, since both would be technically correct for those who – in the case of the UK – were born there between 1801 and 1928. In any case there should be some way of modelling this relationship. Jc86035 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. If you ignore Ireland. If you ignore the absence of constituencies returning MPs to the UK parliament as a result of the 32 counties. If you ignore enough stuff, you can for sure find some way to 'model this relationship', to solve a problem which does not exist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
And really. Why stop at 1801? Kingdom of Great Britain (Q161885) is up for grabs, because what, really, was the difference? Another Act of Parliament? A few more or less Irish constituencies - and who cares about them? That gets you to 1707. Or Kingdom of England (Q179876) because the difference was just Scotland, and we're all the way back to pre-Conquest times. Yay. "Problem" solved. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(I have edited my previous comment to add strikethrough tags.) Of course, this all depends on what we define the existence of a country as being. I'm assuming that a territorial change (e.g. the annexation of Crimea; Belgium–Netherlands "land swaps") or a name change does not cause all countries involved to cease existing. According to the current ontology the Irish Free State split from the UK of GB/I in 1922, and then the UK of GB/I continued existing until 1927, when the Act of Parliament to change its name was passed. I think this is logically inconsistent. Jc86035 (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to me that this change in the territory ruled necessarily makes for a different entity in terms of a government. We consider the U.S. (and its government) to have continuity at least back to the Constitution, and generally to the Decalaration of Independence, even though there were originally 13 states and are now 50 plus assorted overseas territories, and because in the areas that were part of the Confederacy in the Civil War, effective rule by that government is not continuous. - Jmabel (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: said to be the same as (P460)? Regardless of how the period of "UK includes Ireland" is represented, items like Government of the United Kingdom (Q6063) still appear to either ignore Ireland's existence or refer to the UK as one entity from 1707 onward. Jc86035 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Well. Good luck with coming up with a workable set of rules which can be applied given the succession of 4 named states we have right now - KoE, GB, UK+I, UK+NI. Each succession is marked by the same three things - acts of parliament, name changes, territorial changes. Jc86035, I'll tell history, when I see it, that you're not happy with how it conducted itself. Meanwhile, as I said, I'll continue with the logic of current four items we have as the basis for P27s. Ping me when you've effected a material change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: I'm not trying to disagree with history. How we represent this in the data structure is an entirely different question. If a structure which isn't perfectly rigid is used for defining the creation of a historical country (Q3024240) in the data, why should the date be 1927, when the obvious material changes occurred earlier? Jc86035 (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I concede the date business; and I see in some places - e.g. Q84#P17 - we use 1922; others, we use 1927. Beyond that I don't think I can help. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just throwing this out there - I think we have this problem because we have not come up with a way to handle "nationality", so editors use "country of citizenship" as a proxy for "nationality". I believe we need "nationality" in a fuzzy and general sense, across time, so that we can say "British author, Russian poet, Italian artist" as found in our sources. And I despair that we'll ever get consensus on this issue. - PKM (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • ^ Absolutely. Jheald (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Mix'n'Match Catalogue

What happens to Mix'n'Match Catalogues that are done? Are they usually deleted (by request)? Steak (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Steak: There are plenty of completed catalogues that remain on mix'n'match for others to view; as far as I have seen @Magnus Manske: generally deletes a catalog only if someone requests it due to a problem with the imported catalogue entries. Mahir256 (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Steak (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@Steak: Keeping the matched entries in the system can actually be quite useful. For example, if one's pushing a list of names through M'n'M search, it's very helpful to see all the different Wikidata items in different MnM catalogues that have been matched to that name, to give an idea of the sort of different possibilities for who it might be. Jheald (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Best way to express a source inferred from an ID?

Idyllwild Arts Foundation (Q5989932), for example, is an instance of nonprofit organization (Q163740); and has country (P17)=United States of America (Q30). Anything with a Charity Navigator ID (P4861) value may be inferred to be so.

I have given the reference for these statements stated in (P248)=Charity Navigator (Q1063259), but that throws a constraint warning. What's the best way to express this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

If I were being strict, since "Charity Navigator ID" = "identifier for a charitable organisation in the United States, in the Charity Navigator database", I would create a separate item "Charity Navigator database" <instance of> database, and use <stated in> "Charity Navigator database" qualified with "Charity Navigator ID". - PKM (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
There's also inferred from (P3452) rather than stated in (P248), if the database entry doesn't give an address directly. Jheald (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

reserve currency

Is it desirable and advisable to store the shares of important reserve currencies as in this table in wikidata? Advantage would be to generate the charts from that table. If yes, how is it done? --Rabenkind (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm Just a Girl Who Can't Say D'oh[39]

Hi, please move Q55987098 I'm Just a Girl Who Can't Say D'oh[39] to I'm Just a Girl Who Can't Say D'oh, thanks --Patriccck (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Patriccck: No need to move anything; just edit the (English, in this case) label. I've done that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks --Patriccck (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 11:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sports tournament results by player/team

John Vandenberg (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Bill william compton (talkcontribslogs)
--►Cekli829 23:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
VicVal (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
AmaryllisGardener talk 19:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Tubezlob (🙋) 16:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Jmmuguerza (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
MisterSynergy
Xaris333
Migrant
Mad_melone

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Sport results Kompakt
Stryn
AmaryllisGardener
Edo de Roo
Wolbo
Matlab1985
Soundwaweserb
Vinkje83
Mad melone
Kacir
A.Gust14
wallerstein-WD
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Tennis

Dear all,

I have searched WikiProject Sport results, WikiProject Tennis and Template:Sports properties to no avail regarding my following question.

For tennis players, most language versions of Wikipedia have a list of tournament wins and some even of all lost finals, i.e. runner-up placements. For reference purposes, please see examples for Serena Williams:

Even though different in styles and overall presentation, there is a common set of information displayed in all versions - and this just calls for a use of Wikidata!

Generally, the following information are included which may be represented by the following structure (example: Angelique Kerber winning Wimbledon):

Of course other details my be applicable for other kind of sports, but I hope the main idea is clear.

I am by no means an expert in Wikidata, but I see a lot of potential for automated lists/templates as shown for Serena Williams above. This is especially important for less known players that play on 2nd tier tournament tours and have a lot of wins there, but are rarely updated in all wikis. Therefore, I am seeking your feedback on the following:

  1. Would the proposed structured work in general?
  2. How could we include the opponent? New Propoerty?
  3. How could we include the scoreline? number of points/goals conceded (P1359) / number of points/goals/set scored (P1351) will not work because they would need additional qualifiers for the different sets. Also a new property for text, potentially with some character restrictions?

Thanks for your support and input,

--Mad melone (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

From what I understand you want to add those details in Angelique Kerber (Q77178). Instead you can add Serena Williams and Angelique Kerber as participant (P710) in 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (Q30098268) . Thereafter derive the rest based on the relationships already present, for e.g.: 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (Q30098268) is related to Wimbledon Championships (Q41520) which has surface played on (P765) as grass court (Q1151291) etc --Unnited meta (talk)
Thanks for your response, but this is not really what I am looking for. As mentioned in my intro, I would like to be able to create the lists of tournaments won (or being runner-up) by a certain player. Therefore, I am basically looking for the inverse element to what you described in order to be able to maintain the information more easily and more central at the player level rather than the tournament level (side note: of course we will also try to create such lists automatically as well, but this would be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wimbledon_ladies%27_singles_champions in contrast to the links given in my original text). Also, I am aware that we derive a couple of information from the tournamament, but this is already a detailed look.
Correcting my above statement, you would need an item that is instance of (P31) of tennis match (Q47459169) which would be part of (P361) 2018 Wimbledon Championships – Women's Singles (Q30098268) that has Serena Williams and Angelique Kerber as participant (P710). I understand your point, but then you will have to manage both at player level and tournament level. Better to have data at one place and link it in a consistent manner so that the same data can be used in multiple use cases. --Unnited meta (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Unnited meta:Thanks again for the continuing feedback. However, after a little bit of thinking, I don't share your views of creating a new item per match played. This idea has been formulated before (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Sannita/Matches), but has some flaws:
  1. If we wanted to pull the information the way presented in the various Serena Williams examples by way of a wiki template, we would have to run very expensive queries on Wikidata every single time a tennis player page is looked up at a given wikipedia version, because we basically had to look for every match played by a specific player in the whole of Wikidata. I don't think that this is the way to go here, but I am not a data expert.
  2. The match-based system you are proposing is very difficult to maintain from a single players perspective. As an example: if I wanted to include a template for tournament wins and runner-up placements in a given wikipedia version, I would check the wikidata page of that player looking for completeness of the data before I included the template. This would be difficult to look at because either (i) I would have to be a WD expert knowing how to run the queries that provide me with the respective information I want to have (and I can assure you that most people writing about tennis, including me, are not) or (ii) I would have to include the template first and then create the matches that are missing.
  3. As long as the information on WD are not complete (and we haven't even started on collecting them), we can only activate above-mentioned templates on a player-by-player basis once completeness (at least to respective point in time) is confirmed. Adding the information required could be done at a player-by-player basis way easier with the approach I am proposing.
  4. On a side note: we have many instances of inverse elements that store the same information from different POVs.
All of those issues are addressed with the setup I am proposing. Lastly, let's look at a potential "endgame" for tennis information on WD which would be being able to fill all of the tournament draws with WD information rather than having all wikipedias inserting them individually (as an example, look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Wimbledon_Championships_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_Singles and all (!) of connected languages which all portray the same information!). I couldn't find the numbers of matches played every year on the WTA and ATP World Tours (and let's not forget about the 2nd tier series and the ITF series that are also covered by wikipedias), but only for the four grand slams, we have 127 ladies' single matches, 127 men's single matches, 63 ladies' doubles matches, 63 men's double matches and 63 mixed doubles matches, i.e. 443 matches per event per year, i.e. 1,772 matches per year. This does not include the wheelchair, junior and senior competitions. Please note that Wimbledon runs for more than 130 years... Another example for a rough estimate of matches played per year: in WTA there are 52 tournaments excluding Grand Slams, the two WTA Final Events FedCup/Hopman cup. If we assumed fields of 32 players per average event (which is actually more) and assumed 16 players in qualifications with 4 qualifiers (which should be a good average), we will have 31 main draw + 12 qualification matches in singles and 15 matches in doubles, i.e. 58 matches per event on average. This would make over 3,000 matches per year for the highest tier of women's tennis alone, excluding tier 2 (definitely relevant) and tier 3 (mostly relevant) and all of the men's events. I don't think that it is a feasible approach to have somewhat 10k new Q-items per year (!) only for tennis.
Still, I am happy for the discussion and would embrace any additional feedback provided by everyone in the community. --Mad melone (talk) 06:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Mad melone: I agree with Unnited meta that you would need to have one item for each match. Matches can be notable in their own right (e.g. Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships (Q30801)) so it would probably make more sense to use the existing data structure, and perhaps have a bot generate data tables on Commons in some way so that the data doesn't have to be reprocessed every time a tournament or player page is viewed. Jc86035 (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jc86035:Point taken. I think the following structure could work

Then we would have to think of the result. Options are a text field where you could enter something like "6:3, 6:3" (or any other agreed format) or describe it as follows:

How does that structure look to you? And any help on the results issue? Thanks, --Mad melone (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mad melone: I'm not sure. match time of event (P1390) only accepts time units right now, and games aren't strictly "points". I've never edited much in this area, but any structure would have to leave open the possibility of adding data for individual points in some way (because eventually someone will want to and be able to import that), probably through Commons data tables. Allowing the match score to be input as "6-3, 6-3" (with agreed syntax for tie breaks, walkovers and so on) seems like the simplest thing to do right now, and if desired in the future that data could be interpreted into a more structured format. Jc86035 (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg InfoWikidata:Property proposal/Match Score--Mad melone (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Something that existed for two ranges of time

According to the English-language Wikipedia, Golden Potlatch (Q5579718) existed 1911-1914 and 1935 (or possibly 1934, the article contradicts itself on this)–1941. I can find no reasonable way to express this, and Help:Dates certainly does not cover such a case. - Jmabel (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

In the more general case this sort of thing usually boils down to a question as to whether it was actually the same thing during both time periods, or whether each could be considered a distinct enough concept to have a separate item for each, with their own inception/abolition dates. In the first case, you could use significant event (P793) to show that it was temporarily suspended, and then again for being reinstated, or, as this was a periodic event anyway, perhaps have linked articles for each of the individual occurrences of the festival. It would probably also be worth looking at the model at Wikidata:WikiProject Cultural events, and/or asking there about this. --Oravrattas (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
One option is this; if you wish to keep it, please add sources. Alternatively, create two "child" items, add one set of dates to each, and make them, say, "part of" the existing parent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I reverted that, because I think it is more confusing than helpful, but thanks for trying.
@Oravrattas: I'd love to do this with significant event (P793), but I don't see any values (properties or q-items) meaning "suspended" or "reinstated". - Jmabel (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we just need to create a couple of q-items for suspended and reinstated. Golden Potlatch (Q5579718) needs to cover the entire history, since that's what the enwiki article is about. Ghouston (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
A single item may be enough, and would work better with multiple periods of dormancy. There's already an item dormancy (Q162267), although I don't think it's appropriate because it applies to biological cycles. But perhaps something similar exists, or could be created. It would be like with start time and end time qualifiers. Ghouston (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I added dormancy (Q55909176) and . I think this resolves it. - Jmabel (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

How much to curate our content

Editing Wikidata, I’m sort of challenging myself on how much to curate data and I’m seeking input on this – and maybe even a reference to some policy? Let me give two examples for you to comment on.

As it takes some time to register a company in Denmark and as the registrations are publicly available, it’s quite common that is you want to create “Great Company” and go public on January 1st, then a few things happen in advance.

A lawyer will during the fall register a company called “Lawyer XYZ company 34” and instate himself as CEO and put a number of his employees on the board. Then by January 1st, he will change the organisations name to “Great Company” insert the true founder of the company as CEO and instate the real board of “Great Company”.

When I source data from the national company register and add verbatim to Wikidata, it seems that “Great Company” was founded a few months before January 1st, that some random people has been on its board and that this lawyer guy has been heading the company. As I try to provide the “Great Company” story, I then tend to leave out these data, as they exist as technicalities and not as indications of the “Great Company” true origin.

In another case, I want to convey the fact that “Great Company” has bought a small Danish Island, which was a story that made the headlines. However, in Denmark, an Island cannot be owned by anybody.

In practical terms, an island consists of one or more pieces of land, registered in the national Cadastre. So, seen from a data perspective, what I can source is a number of ownership changes for each of the pieces of land that constitutes that island, but only by understanding the specific structure of that island and combining all of the ownership changes can actually lead to the insight that “the island has changed ownership”.

So, I end up putting an ownership statement on the island, pointing to the owner and thus representing the fact that I want to publish, rather than creating an elaborate structure with items for each of the land pieces, etc.

So, please help me to understand if my actions represent an acceptable label of curation or if I’m completely off. --VicVal (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I think what you're describing is the distinction between legal definitions and common human understanding - in general I would favor Wikidata hosting statements that are close to the common understanding of people, rather than whatever the precise legal situation is. However, there may be reason to have both - and Wikidata does allow for that, with appropriate references, qualifiers, etc. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
That's actually a good point - that i can create the correct legal statements that are clearly sourced and then do statements which are inferred from these!? --VicVal (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Use significant event (P793) to describe the different steps of company creation. You just have to find the correct terms for both events you want to describe. Snipre (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

two data tables

Hi

I have two data tables which need linking

Only one column (text) is common to both tables, however is not an exact match. There is just one or two words that make a link.

I need an easier method where I can link the two tables on a monthly basis

Table 1 has product specific data from suppliers, with cost of each product Table 2 has product specific data from customers, with sale price of each product and QTY sold

If you can help in any way, ie a software or website that converts the data

Help is much appreciated,  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akhan1984 (talk • contribs) at 9. 8. 2018, 00:37‎ (UTC).

Replied on the user's talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
That was kind of you Tagishsimon. --99of9 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Matěj Suchánek (talk) 09:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Property for relation Church parish and administrative parish

I think I have seen a property for connecting a Church parish with a corresponding "administrative" parish but cant find it... Anyone who can help? - Salgo60 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Would it be located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
No sorry - Salgo60 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

With regard to religious entities I'm only aware of diocese (P708). strakhov (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A query (tinyurl.com/y7mc5r73 find only 4 cases of such items being related: two by located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), one by part of (P361) (which probably should be P131 instead), and one by followed by (P156).
In the opposite direction (tinyurl.com/y6wkyvts) there is only one such link, a has part (P527).
separated from (P807) might be conceivable, though it might normally represent a spatial carve-out, rather than a carve-out of roles.
named after (P138) might also be conceivable, though more likely would be considered named after a village or area.
territory overlaps (P3179) might also link the two, if one does not perfectly nest inside the other. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for trying - maybe I just saw it in proposed properties
It is different WD objects that should be connected using this property
The basic idea is in Sweden we had civil parish or a administrative parish socken (Q1523821) then in parallell we had Parishes of the Church of Sweden. As those administrative units are related this property should make this connection...
Example
- Salgo60 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Such could be usefull for Norwegian parishes too. Breg Pmt (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Pmt (talkcontribslogs)FYI: We are cleaning the data in Wikidata for Swedish "församlingar" and in the next step we will see how we can integrate with a project from the Swedish National Archive called TORA that is a Topographical register concerning historical settlements in Sweden using Linked DATA see projekt and property P5324
When "cleaning Wikidata" I can see that if you are in a location and in the parish of church like you look in the books "kyrkböcker" then many resources created are connected to the administrative parish "socken" ==> somehow it would be nice to "walk" from the "församling" -> "socken" -> resource . I have played with a hub tool that can rather nice link if we set up some structure see blog, project workboard wmse-riksarkivet-tora - Salgo60 (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • It is very confusing so if there is an official hierarchy, I would love to see it cleaned up. We also recently added Property:P5048. --RAN (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Its 400 years of administration so yes its a lot of changes that can be confusing.
  • In sv:Wikipedia we have
    • articles of all Swedish administrative parishes "socken" see Petscan
    • articles of all(nearly) Swedish church parishes "församlingar" see Petscan
We are now moving this down to Wikidata and try to connect with other institutions data see project wmse-riksarkivet-tora and task T199784
- Salgo60 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As P131 is only for the governmental hierarchy, it seems there should be a more general property which then can be used for the ecclesiastical hierarchy - the various Christian churches, but also e.g. Thai Buddhism has such structure. And there are also other territorial hierarchies, e.g. military command. Similar like we have the catalogue property for miscellaneous catalogues, and some specific properties for special catalogues. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

parent organization (P749) is available, and might be used to express a parish -> diocese -> province hierarchy. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Property proposal draft

I will suggest a property that connects a civil parish and the related church parish. Please help me to formulate this in good english '

  • Name: Related parish
  • Description: Property to connect the administrative parish with the church parish and vice versa.
  • Motivation: In Sweden we have "socken" civil parish and "församlingar" church parish. As some properties are just connected to the civil parish and some to the church parish it is useful to connect the related parishes so that you easy can find items that are related

Question: Is this clear enough? - Salgo60 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I suggest two distinct properties, one in each direction.
  • Also, you might want a broader notion than just "parish," since (for example) a Catholic diocese could have similar considerations.
  • Also, you will want to think about whether you intend this only when the correspondence is 1-1, or whether you are interested in things where there is an overlap but not an exact correspondence. - Jmabel (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Anyone with a better name? The normal case is 1-1 but as always there are exceptions over 400 year and the last years the church parish is more "unstable" - 20:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Salgo60: will it be like will have proposed property civil parish With value Alfta socken (Q10405130) and in addition it will have proposed property parish With value no label (Q10405126)? Pmt (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pmt: that is my idea BUT this is for older days. The Swedish Districts is a new construction that we really dont know why we have ;-) (my opinion). The main interest right now is to navigate the Swedish parish we have had since 1600 and has been very stable to the Swedish Church parish "församlingar".
Alfta is a good example as what has happened 2012 is that no label (Q10405126) was merged with another "församling" and no label (Q10405121) was created...
So question is should we have all those relations also between
Right now I feel we have no User case for connecting all but maybe a property should be more general?
Task for this T199893 - project Workboard wmse-riksarkivet-tora - area on Github to help cleaning the WD data - Salgo60 (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution: Sigmund Freud and Nobel Prize nominations

Sigmund Freud was nominated for the Nobel Prize multiple times, according to the website of the Nobel Prize organisation. https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/show_people.php?id=3209

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q9215&oldid=707381639 showed these nominations, well-cited, until User:Pierrette13 came along and deleted them all. Asked why, Pierrette13 explains on User talk:Dorades: "Regarding his nominations for the Nobel Prize, please see https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/show_people.php?id=3209 (the official site of the Nobel Prize) -- being nominated doesn't mean he had to be close to win it. If". The data removed was in nominated for (P1411).

Asked about the Nobel nomination deletions again, Pierrette13 says (according to google translate) "As for the "almost Nobel", obviously I will not go back to reinsert, it's great anything in my opinion. Can you tell me the list of others 'almost Nobel' and I will make a group protest, thanks to you".

I'm at a loss to know how to deal with a user who seems, to me, to have a thing for removing data on a whim. It's discouraging to see wanton destruction of people's work. @Pierrette13:. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  • My own opinion is that nominations for the Nobel are awfully easy to come by, and not notable. - Jmabel (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Nominations for the Nobel Prize are well-cited and thus can be added to Wikidata. --Pasleim (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm relatively new here, so perhaps I don't understand Wikidata's criteria. To be on Wikidata, doesn't something have to be citable and notable, not merely citable? - 04:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree, nominations for the Nobel Prize are not easy to come by, are notable and useful to have. JerryL2017 (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Have a read of en:Nobel_Prize#Nominations - nominations are from quite a restricted pool of people. Given that they can be well-cited, I'd say they're notable enough to be included here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can be nominated by the "thousands of members of academies, university professors, scientists, previous Nobel Laureates and members of parliamentary assemblies", but there is an official short list maintained by the Nobel Committee that is made public 50 years after the award is given out. I see no reason to exclude the data. --RAN (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
A "short list" is probably notable. But the full list? There were 330 official nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. I guess that's tractable, if we really want it, but a lot of it has to be like the sort of candidate for the U.S. presidency who gets 200 votes. - Jmabel (talk) 03:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The Nobel Price seems to me a notable prize where the nominations are of general interest. It's valuable to be able to ask question such as how many nobel price nominations citizens of a particular country got in a certain year. Wikidata allows the same with alumni of specific universitites. Wikidata might be the only place that gives you an answer if you want to know how many Harvard alumni got a Nobel Price nomination in 1961. The idea that question like that aren't of interest to anyone and thus shouldn't be able to be answered seems mistaken to me.
Apart from that we have a rule that items have to be notable with our own definition of what we mean with notable with is a lot broader than the Wikipedia version. I'm not aware of any Wikidata policy that says that individual statements need notability just that they need trustworthy sources. ChristianKl❫ 07:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree I have been populated Dictionary of Swedish National Biography (P3217) and it is of great interest who nominated those people for the Nobel price list. It gives an good understanding of people with "influence" during that time period se Nomination Database Selma Lagerlöf
I would like to see that we set up federated searches with the Nobel Price database and could create queries in Wikidata and in the Nobel Price database - Salgo60 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

How to set up a Feederated search Nobel Price SPARQL -> Wikidata

I would like to see that we can search Nobel Price SPARQL -> Wikidata and also Wikidata -> Nobel Price SPARQL endpoint http://data.nobelprize.org/snorql/

Question: What is the process? Nobel Price SPARQL -> Wikidata

On www.nobelprize.org page Linked Data Examples we can see example of how DBPedia can be used can we set up the same?

Since our dataset is linked to other datasets, it's possible to query several datasets at the same time. Below is an example that combines the Nobelprize dataset with DBPedia. It will list the all Nobel Prize Laureates in the Nobelprize dataset that are born in countries smaller than a certain area according to DBPedia.
PREFIX dbpo: <http://dbpedia.org/ontology/> 
PREFIX rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> 
PREFIX nobel: <http://data.nobelprize.org/terms/> 
PREFIX rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> 
PREFIX owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> 
SELECT DISTINCT ?label ?country 
WHERE { 
 ?laur rdf:type nobel:Laureate . 
 ?laur rdfs:label ?label . 
 ?laur dbpo:birthPlace ?country . 
 ?country rdf:type dbpo:Country . 
 ?country owl:sameAs ?dbp . 
 SERVICE <http://dbpedia.org/sparql> { 
   ?dbp dbpo:areaTotal ?area . 
   FILTER (?area < 10000000000) 
 } 
}

Task T200668

- Salgo60 (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I added a nomination - Salgo60 (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity and religion should have at least one reference

"Statements for religion should have at least one reference" the same for ethnicity. Does that mean we delete the field and the current data if there is no reference currently? Someone is making a large number of deletions and I want to see if consensus was formed to delete the information, if currently not referenced. I know they are deleting them in the English Wikipedia but I have not seen a discussion here. The person deleting them has been warned twice about making mass deletions at Wikidata based on rules set at the English Wikipedia. Surly Eddie Murphy's daughter is African-American and a reference can be found. We really should not be deleting data at Wikidata because it is being deleted at the English Wikipedia. We went through this before when they mass deleted links to Findagrave at English Wikipedia and started deleting them at Wikidata as an "unreliable source". See Special:Contributions/Nikkimaria for examples of the mass deletions. --RAN (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you want to find a source and re-add, by all means do so. However, as the description for the property states, "consensus is that a VERY high standard of proof is needed for this field to be used. In general this means 1) the subject claims it him/herself, or 2) it is widely agreed on by scholars, or 3) is fictional and portrayed as such". This is particularly important for living people. See also relevant discussion here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I see a discussion between five people, I do not see a formal consensus for mass deletion. You were twice warned about getting a formal ruling before you start mass deletions. If a formal consensus to delete is acknowledged, a bot will make the deletions for ethnicity and for religion. --RAN (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
We already have consensus that it is not appropriate to have these properties without sources. Note also that both religion and ethnicity are considered "likely to be challenged" for the purposes of Wikidata:Living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Why are you deleting one here and one there on an ad hoc basis? You did the same thing when you deleted Findagrave when it was used as a reference. If you established consensus for deletion, we delete them all at the same time. Perhaps we keep them and make them unviewable by the general public until they are sourced. There are several possible solutions, all requiring firm consensus, not a discussion between a few editors. Remember, you were warned twice before about doing this sort of thing, and each time you just moved to a new data field and started deleting again. Consensus at the English Wikipedia does not apply to Wikidata. Wikidata serves all language Wikipedias, and consensus must be established here. --RAN (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it would be technically feasible or desirable to have claims that are unviewable by the general public. That leaves 2 options: a) allow the unsourced statements b) delete them. There could also be an option to add references to them all, but it would presumably take a long time, and there's no guarantee that anybody would do it, which means in practice it would be similar to a). Ghouston (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, we have already established consensus on Wikidata that these fields must be sourced. This has nothing to do with what enwiki does or doesn't do. If you'd like to propose a bot to remove the unsourced values, by all means go ahead, but at this point AFAIK no such bot exists. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • "Must be sourced" and "must be deleted if unsourced" are not synonyms, and you have been warned twice before about mass deletions without getting a clear consensus to do so. Yet, you just keep moving to new data fields and disregard the previous warnings. --RAN (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Most Wikidata constraints are more suggestions than requirements. Why is this one different? - Jmabel (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • These properties are considered sensitive, particularly as regards living people. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That is why it says "Statements for religion SHOULD have at least one reference" and not "Statements for religion MUST have at least one reference".

Actually, the constraint states that "a property must have at least one reference" (my emphasis). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata:Living_people uses "should". I assume it's more authoritative than the constraint. Ghouston (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I also read this as meaning that we don't want unsourced statements with that property. And I also tend to remove those statements if unsourced, especially at the items of living people, if I can't find a source in the first results of a web search. I would definitely support a bot removing those unsourced statements at items for non-fictional persons. If somebody cares about this information, this person can add it again, with a source. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Although, oddly, Valentina, any reading of SHOULD and MAY in Wikidata:Living people should take due regard of rfc2119, per Wikidata:Living people#Notes. In that document, we read 5. MAY This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is truly optional. and if we understand the may we are discussing to be may be removed, then we are left with the conclusion that removal is truly optional. And hence far from mandated. All emphasis mine. --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
It might not be mandated, but it is still an option (for the editor challenging a statement). The statement "anything that's individually challenged or might be challenged should be supported by a reliable public source or may be subject to removal." at Statements likely to be challenged refers to any statement at an item about a living person, not only to those with property likely to be challenged (Q44597997)-properties. instance of (P31):property likely to be challenged (Q44597997) expresses a special need of sourcing, beyond the one applying to any statement at an item of a living person, as does the constraint citation needed constraint (Q54554025). Also note the sentence "In the case of a dispute, the burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." It seems to me that editors removing property likely to be challenged (Q44597997)-statements at items of living people are well supported by that. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
While accepting all the above, I would be opposed to automated removal of such statements. John Paul II (Q989)religion (P140)  Catholic Church (Q9592) doesn't currently have a reference, but I wouldn't like to see it bot-removed. Jheald (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we be removing them ad hoc one at a time, as people browse through Wikidata? Should the ones removed be restored? Should we add a disclaimer that the information is tentative until referenced? --RAN (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, since a lot of them are likely to be valid, instead of deleting them entirely a bot could mark them as deprecated rank with reason for deprecation (P2241) some form of "reference required for this claim". Ghouston (talk) 06:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
deletion is not a quality improvement process, i would invite the people deleting claims to instead start a "missing citation" task flow, and start referencing claims. anything else is wasting everyone time with empty pontificating. Slowking4 (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Farsi-only "religions"

There are several items such as no label (Q5923778) and no label (Q5925628) that are sitelinked only to fa-wiki, described as instance of (P31) religion (Q9174), and which appear to be sites with Iranian National Heritage registration numbers. I don't read Farsi at all, but this seemed unlikely to me; Google translates suggests strongly to me that these are not religions. Can someone who reads some Farsi have a look? - Jmabel (talk) 06:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup, Ebrahim, Modern Sciences: Mahir256 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Jmabel: Yes, not related, removed, thanks. −ebrahimtalk 11:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
If you can find the others please do so and ping me. Apparently some keyword in the title has tricked the bot to add them which is understandable for a Persian speaker but should be removed −ebrahimtalk 11:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Confusion about instance-of vs subclass-of

Repeatedly I've come across the problem of having to determine what exactly the instances of a given class are. I think I understand Help:Basic membership properties but it hasn't answered my question.

For example, take head of state (Q48352): it's described as "official who holds the highest ranked position in a sovereign state". Should I think of it as a class whose instances are certain humans, or as a class whose instances are certain public offices? If I follow the subclass chain to person (Q215627), I find that its instances are in fact persons; if I follow its subclass chain to public office (Q294414), I find that its instances are public offices.

Given this situation, would president of Germany (Q25223) be a subclass or an instance of head of state (Q48352)? I think one could argue it both ways. Wikidata chose to take it as a subclass, apparently conceptualizing president of Germany (Q25223) as a class whose instances are certain persons, but one could just as easily have said that president of Germany (Q25223) is a single public office and must therefore be an instance of head of state (Q48352). This is for example how Doge of Venice (Q858316) is handled.

Are there general rules/principles that govern these cases? AxelBoldt (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I would say that the office is a subclass and the individual an instance of that subclass. - Jmabel (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @AxelBoldt, Jmabel: This is an aspect of a very general issue: how do you model a single entity that has regular significant changes over time, whether a repeating event, a competition, a periodical publication, a body of work such as a legal code, or a political position or office like this. In my view Wikidata entities that are not specific events should be regarded as much as possible as timeless concepts. In Wikidata we don't regard a person or organization as a class of the various instances of that entity as they changed over time; I think the same should apply here. So in my view specifically in this case, president of Germany (Q25223) should be said to be an instance of head of state (Q48352). Subclass would apply only if there are multiple simultaneous holders of the position, for example for members of a legislature, where the instances would be individual seats (if they can be identified as distinct entities). ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Totally disagree. There is no modeling difference between multiple instances over time and multiple instances at one time. - Jmabel (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jmabel: It's not an issue of modeling differences, but conceptual, regarding our ontology. Would you consider "Einstein in 1905", "Einstein in 1922", "Einstein in 1955" instances of the class "Einstein", with "Einstein" a subclass rather than an instance of "human"? That is conceptually plausible, but it's not what we do. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I certainly would not do that about years in a person's life.
        • So, do I understand from this and Jheald's remark below that here "President of Germany" is used more like what I might call "presidency of Germany"? As in, we don't say that Hindenberg is an instance of "President of Germany", but that he "held the office"? Because to me, speaking normally, if I refer to the "President of the United States" I am referring to a person; if I refer to the "presidency of the United States" I am referring to an office. - Jmabel (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • We don't make individual humans members of any other classes than human (Q5). "President" or "Mayor" or whatever should always be considered to denote an office, not a person or group of people. None of these positions should ever have been added into the subclass tree of person (Q215627), it only creates confusion if such relations are there.
If there is only one office, like President of Germany, then it should be instance of (P31) head of state (Q48352) and not subclass of (P279). If it is possible to distinguish the office in different ways -- eg if one distinguished different offices for time periods, only then would a subclass of (P279) relationship make sense. I'm aware that people have made a real ploughed field of this in the database, but this is the principle we should be aiming for. Systematic clean-up in this area is long overdue. Jheald (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: I was asking for general rules and principles, and the principle "humans are only ever instance of a single class, human (Q5)" is an important such principle, that helps a lot. Is it documented somewhere, is there a page that collects these ontology principles? Or should we maybe put it in the description of human (Q5)? We currently have numerous subclasses of human (Q5), which I assume is fine, as long as none of them ever has an instance, right? AxelBoldt (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I just added it today to Help:Modelling/Other domains, because it's one of those things I wish someone had told me sooner. - Jmabel (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

How do we store non official names?

Hi, we got a proprety « official name » that can store the name of stuffs, say a place, in the official language of the place it belongs to. It’s obviously useful to store the names in the original language in an easier way than to find the good language(s) and choose the label in this language(s). Labels in other languages are free to be whatever fits for that language, which is useful for example in French in which place names are often translated (or translitterated) in something in french.

It’s also useful to store the successive name of the topic if it was rebranded, and it’s the use I’m interested in here. It may be that the name change in the original language, but that the translation also change in an unofficial language… But if community choose not to create two items for before/after the renaming, how do we deal with translation of unofficial names, is there a practice/guideline/property?

My ideal solution would be to create several items but I’m not sure this is always a good fit. Do you have example for this? I’m looking for usecases.

I may try to create a global lua module for the result to be cross wiki reusable if relevant.

This question origin is a request in the french wikipedia biography wikidata infobox to show a name for a birth place at the birth date of a person, and has it’s counterpart of the french wikidata chat, but I feel like this may need a broader audience so I ask here.

author  TomT0m / talk page 16:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@TomT0m: What about using name (P2561) with start and end date? --Micru (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You can now query the constraint violations with the Query Service

Hello all,

We started integrating the constraint violations into the Query Service. That means you can build queries using the constraint violations, with the predicate wikibase:hasViolationForConstraint. This will hopefully help you to watch better the quality of Wikidata content.

Please note that this is a first step. Not all constraint violations are exposed yet, only the ones that can be checked fast enough. We're working on having more available in WDQS.

You can base your queries on these few examples:

#10 statements with constraint violations that are currently included
SELECT * WHERE {
?x wikibase:hasViolationForConstraint ?y.
} LIMIT 10

Try it!

#Map/timeline/image grid of items that have a statement with a constraint violation
#defaultView:Map
SELECT DISTINCT ?item ?itemLabel ?image ?coordinate_location ?point_in_time ?date_of_birth WHERE {
  ?s wikibase:hasViolationForConstraint ?y.
  ?item ?z1 ?s.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P18 ?image. }
  OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P625 ?coordinate_location. }
  OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P585 ?point_in_time. }
  OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P569 ?date_of_birth. }
}

Try it!

#Bar chart of statements that have a constraint violation, grouped by instance of the regarding item:
#defaultView:BarChart
#TEMPLATE={ "template": { "en": "Bar chart of statements that have a constraint violation grouped by ?property the regarding item" }, "variables": { "?property": { "query":"SELECT ?id  WHERE { VALUES ?id {  wd:P31 wd:P17 wd:P571 wd:P361 wd:P19 } }" } } }
SELECT ?instance_ofLabel (COUNT(?instance_ofLabel) AS ?count) WHERE {
  ?s wikibase:hasViolationForConstraint ?y.
  ?item ?z1 ?s.
  BIND(wdt:P31 AS ?property)
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  OPTIONAL { ?item ?property ?instance_of. }
}
GROUP BY ?instance_ofLabel
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
LIMIT 30

Try it!

The modules included on the property talk pages, Module:Constraints, Module:Constraints/SPARQL etc. has been updated with a new query link (thanks Matěj!)

See also:

If you have any question, feel free to ping me. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, IMO this is already now definitely the best new feature of the month! Am I correct if I find that there are currently only ~10k constraint violations in total exposed to the Query Service (count)? It would also be great if there was a list of supported constraint types (like this one perhaps), and I already noticed that the Query Service autocompletion tool does not know wikibase:hasViolationForConstraint yet. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Good to hear you like it :) Unfortunately we can't give a list of supported constraint types because it doesn't depend on the type of constraint but on the time it takes to execute the specific check on the specific item. If it's done before the query service update it gets in, otherwise not. We wanted to see if there is interest in this feature before making the necessary more complex changes that are required to get them all in. But it seems people really like it so we'll do that and then all of them will get in. The ticket for that is phabricator:T201147
    • I'll file a ticket for the autocompletion. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice. It would be good if there was sample query limiting it to mandatory constraints for specific P31 or P106.
    --- Jura 11:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I tried adding
    ?constraint pq:P2316 wd:Q21502408 .
    but it just times out. Bovlb (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Excellent. Looks like quite a lot of data is still missing. I got the first one to run on lighthouses, but somehow the constraint violation statement disappeared from query server (without being fixed).
    --- Jura 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to make out from the Phabricator ticket exactly how this got implemented. Apparently it is not part of the regular RDF changes feed, as I'm not seeing it on my private server. And there is some discussion of how it interacts with caching in the wbcheckconstraints API, so maybe it is only updated when someone looks at the item. Bovlb (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deleted items

User Lakokat (speedy) deleted the items Q55862320 and Q55863756 without any discussion and any check of its usage at the page information. I ask anybody who has the right to undelete them.

Both items are used on the German Wikivoyage article of Montreux in Switzerland. Q55862320 is a historic market hall, the other one a youth hostel. Unfortunately the market hall is not yet described in Wikipedia. The items are necessary to share information across various language editions. --RolandUnger (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I restored both items, as they were in use at dewikivoyage per [1][2]. It would nevertheless be great if you could complement more information about both entities, to make it easier for Wikidatans to understand what those items are about (particularly references to external sources and external IDs, if available). —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@RolandUnger: Is no label (Q55862320) the same as Montreux indoor market (Q3289846)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's the same. --RolandUnger (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry for deleting the items you have mentioned, I agree that they should not be deleted in the first place. They have been restored by User:MisterSynergy, thank you MisterSynergy. When I delete any item, I will check its properties, sitelinks and inbound links (for example, Special:WhatLinksHere/Q55862320) to check its usage and whether it meets the notability policy. It does not produce any inbound links or transclusions thus I am not awared of the item being used when the data are queried by wikidata or other wikimedia projects. I will definitely check also the item 'info' to better trace the usage when I delete any items from now on. Lakokat 11:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Celestial coordinates for stars

Why don't star (Q523) have their coordinates in the celestial coordinate system (Q86394) attached? It seems to me that would be an automatable little project. Abductive (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

phab:T127950.--GZWDer (talk) 23:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Ticket initiated Feb 24 2016, 1:13 PM. Current time 07:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC). Abductive (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): Is this still in the pipeline?--Micru (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes but to be honest not super high. It is one of the projects I offer students when they ask for projects around Wikidata to do as part of their thesis or similar. If there is larger agreement that this is very important to have (compared to all the other things that you want) I can bump it in priority. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
There's only about 12,000 stars listed on Wikidata. Abductive (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Plural English aliases

Have we started simple '-s ending' adding plurals as aliases in English?

I ask because after I removed one from drum (Q11404), User:Jura1 has reverted me, more than once. His latest edit summary claiming that some unspecified part of Help:Aliases (which makes no mention of such cases) and, bizarrely, Help:Description support his action. My suggestion that he start an RfC if he wants us to add such aliases seems to have been ignored.

I note that the first arbitrary five items I checked (house (Q3947), train (Q870), bed (Q42177), pipe (Q104526), computer (Q68)) none have such an alias; nor does any example on Help:Aliases. I don't recall ever seeing one before this.

If there is consensus to add such aliases, we should update our documentation, and make announcements in the usual commnity channels. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  • "drums" seems valid per "The label on a Wikidata entry is the most common name that the entity would be known by to readers. All of the other common names that an entry might go by, including alternative names acronyms and abbreviations; and alternative translations and transliterations, should be recorded as aliases.". Help:Description was just mentioned as you apparently ignore it, looking some change on my watchlist.
    I think the only problem with plurals that came up in the last discussion, may be that they could refer to another item. (This isn't the case here).
    --- Jura 22:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I (a native English speaker) have never known anyone, ever, refer to "a drum" as "drums"; it is not a "common name that the entity [N.B. singular] would be known by to readers". Your quote - "...acronyms and abbreviations; and alternative translations and transliterations..." - does not include "plurals". "Drums" does, contrary to your assertion, refer to another item; it is a valid alias on drum kit (Q128309). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
    • It's being used by other websites to refer to this.
      --- Jura 22:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
      • As a native English speaker, we do say "(s)he plays drums" rather than "(s)he plays drum" with reference to a percussionist whose normal instrument is a drum kit (whereas we don't say "(s)he plays guitars" or "(s)he plays piano". So this one is a little tricky. - Jmabel (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
        • If someone types "drums", which items should they get? One, the other, or both?
          --- Jura 09:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
        • The question is not "do we use plurals of terms to refer to multiple items" but "Have we started simple '-s ending' adding plurals as aliases in English?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Quickstatements Problem

I am trying to use quickstatements, and I encounter the problem that identical values of the same property can not be added. In my case, Elo ratings shall be added, and if on two or more elo lists, the elo of a player is the same (happens often especially for inactive players), then of course this has to be documented, but, as it says at Help:Quickstatements, "Existing statements with an exact match (property and value) will not be added again". How can I force the tool to add those statements notwithstanding the identical values? Steak (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
So how can I then import the Elo ratings? Steak (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You need to find another way around. Or you can try to convince Magnus that this is severe problem of QuickStatements. Matěj Suchánek (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with importing large amounts of data to wikidata. Can somebody recommend some other possibility? Steak (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Issue on BitBucketWesalius (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Can this import done with PAWS? If so, how difficult would it be? Steak (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Not so difficult. However, I recently ran into trouble using PAWS with my regular account without a bot flag. It might be wiser to set up a SteakBot account, apply for a bot flag and do the import with that account, using PAWS. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Steak, Matěj Suchánek, MisterSynergy: OpenRefine can be used for that. It takes qualifiers into account when matching new statements with the existing ones. − Pintoch (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a look at it. Also interesting for User:Wesalius. Steak (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Railway platforms

How should closed railway platforms (or platforms not normally accessible like emergency platforms) be modelled with number of platform faces (P5595) and number of platform tracks (P1103)? Should multiple values be added with qualifiers (e.g. P1103 → 3 qualifier of (P642) [open]; P1103 → 5 qualifier of (P642) [existing])? Jc86035 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Normandy

Normandy (Q15878) and Normandy (Q18677875) are both about Normandy. Sitelinks are divided up between them. What should be done in situation like this? Frayae (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe start by reading about the subject? They aren't exactly the same. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe start by reading the question ("Sitelinks are divided up between them"), instead of sniping at the person who asked it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You can throw Duchy of Normandy (Q842091) into the mix, too. Note that the image on "Q15878" is "Duchy of Normandy.png". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
And more: Category:Medieval Normandy (Q18913158) is linked to commons:Category:Normandy; while Category:Normandy (Q6787691) is paired with c:Category:Région Normandie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
The problem for me is that en:Normandy is connected to Q18677875 and is:Normandí is connected to Q15878. This creates a situation where my query for pages that are on the Icelandic Wikipedia but not the English Wikipedia shows that the English Wikipedia has no article for Normandy. But it does have an article, both articles contain all the definitions of Normandy, but can only be connected to one data item. There are 18,000~ pages on the Icelandic Wikipedia not linked to a corresponding English Wikipedia page. But how many of these are similar mismatches rather than missing pages? Frayae (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What about doing this during phab:T54971, i.e. re-consider allowing multiple links for one sitelink entry? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Liuxinyu970226: You keep pushing this, but it's not going to happen. Ever. For a taste of what happens when multiple sitelinks are allowed, consider Commons category (P373). It becomes a nightmare to identify what the actual principal correspondence is. Which is why people like Mike Peel have been working so hard to create Commons sitelinks, precisely because they are 1-to-1. Other secondary linking mechanisms might get added, but the basic principle of 1-to-1 for sitelinks is not going to change. It's too valuable, too much of the time. Jheald (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: The actual problem is that some Wikipedias, like 3 Incubating sites, really have more than one articles (e.g. Judaeo-Spanish Wikipedia (Q3756562)), that match same Commons category (P373) value, that are describing same single concept, that are giving same benefits, that are demonstrating same events, that are... too lots of same, and is Wikimedia permanent duplicate item (Q21286738) really fair for them? At least no for Armenian, because they decided to create an independent hyw.wikipedia.org, and split Western Armenian articles to that new site, one of the reason of this future event, afaik is because of this unfair limit. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

1 Wikipedia article- 2 items

Newbie question: what does one do when 2 items have the same English Wikipedia article.

While editing a category for the Ainu language at English Wiktionary, I noticed that the the Wikidata-derived Wikipedia link pointed to w:Hokkaido Ainu language, which is a redirect to w:Ainu language. That's because Wikipedia has only one article for the Ainu language, but Wikidata has several items- as it should- and Wiktionary's data module points to Q20968488. Now that I've thought more about it, I think Wiktionary should be pointing to Q27969, the parent category.

Before I realized that, though, I tried to change Q20968488's Wikipedia en property to point to the only Wikipedia article on the subject, but it failed due to Q27969 already having that in it's Wikipedia en property. Given that one Wikipedia article may be the only page at Wikipedia for more than one Wikidata item, it seems strange to have a one-to-one relationship between Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles. Reserving the Wikipedia article for the parent category won't always work, because Wikipedia's coverage decisions aren't always based on the data structures that Wikidata uses. Or am I misunderstanding something? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Vici.org identifiers (P1481)

I'm working on a large upload to Wikimedia Commons of images of Classical sites. Many of the sites and even objects in the upload have Vici.org identifiers. It so happens that this identifier has a property in WD as well (Property:P1481), but it is used only a few times. It obviously makes sense to add this property to the larger sites and monuments (for example Ecbatana, Q696193), but what about small monuments? For example, the upload has images of a monumental stone lion in Ecbatana. Should that be imported to WD? And if not, are there any guidelines on where and how we should draw the line? As another example, the upload contains material on the Mausoleum of Avicenna, which is also on Wikidata (Q5952145) and on vici.org. Any advice would be welcome! Best, --AWossink (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@JakobVoss, Kolja21, Micru:, who proposed/voted on the property's proposal and might have ideas about it. Mahir256 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This is more a matter of WD:N than anything else. Just create the items that are relevant, that is when they have more than one reference.--Micru (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
@AWossink: If in doubt, lean towards creating it (provided of course you've tried & failed to match it). The time is going to come when CommonsData will be live and we are going to want to start adding depicts (P180) and main subject (P921) statements there for images on Commons. Very useful to have the item here to link to, and more information about it. Beyond that, if something is worth creating a category for on Commons, then definitely make sure it has an item here, which will mean that c:Template:Wikidata infobox can be added to the category. Once a thing has an item here, with an identifier uniquely distinguishing it, that opens the doors for all sorts other sites and other cross-referencing data to potentially be added in future -- and all sorts of query results that it could start to appear in. Jheald (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mahir256, Micru, Jheald: Thanks for chipping in! It sounds like creating the items beforehand seems like the best way to go then. --AWossink (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Allowing editors to add edit summaries

Now edit summaries are automatically generated, and editors can only add customized edit summaries to reverting, restoring, or merging. Is it possible to allow editors to add edit summaries to all kinds of edits? The auto-generated edit summary can provide just basic information on what the edit is, but cannot provide information in details or explain why the edit is made. Allowing editors to add edit summaries can provide additional and useful information. Of course the editor-added edit summaries would not replace, but just supplement, the auto-generated edit summaries. I would appreciate it if anyone could discuss this issue here. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Once in a great many edits I wish I could add an edit summary to explain what I am doing. But it is rare. Abductive (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Queries

Hi, I am looking for the code allowing to extract instances of a class X including instances of subclasses of class X.

Ex.:

I1 is instance of X1 I2 is instance of X2 X2 is subclass of X1

I want both I1 and I2. So how can I modify the following code:

SELECT * WHERE {
  ?compound wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:QX
}

Try it!

Thanks Snipre (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What heart rate does your name have?

You name does have a heart rate, right?

"But surely", you say, "a name cannot have a heart rate? Only a living thing can have a heart rate!"

And yet, dog (Q144) is an instance of common name (Q502895), and it has a heart rate.

When are we going to stop this nonsense? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What's your proposal to resolve „this nonsense“? --Succu (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Pick one item to be used in statements (an instance of taxon, although the label can be "dog" for convenience), and minimize use of the duplicates created for Wikipedias. Ghouston (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently using a taxon-centric model with other names being properties or aliases is unacceptable although it not entirely clear what use-cases that model would fail in. The claim for using a name-centric model is that one item for every name keeps them independent of the organims being referred to because every taxonomic author can have their own view of what the circumscription (characters defining a group) of a taxon (a group of organisms) is. This would presumably also require items with labels that are meaning-free - maybe taxon entities that are unnamed and use a UniqueID. See also Property_talk:P1420. Pinging also @Peter_coxhead: @Kaldari:. Shyamal (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
So where are properties - like heart rate, or number of legs, or gait, or... - which are about the (class of) organism, not the name, supposed to go? And, anyway, aren't items about the names of things supposed to go in the Lexeme namespace? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, and the common name, not the taxon!, has a "taxon common name" Q144#P1843. Also subclassOf "domesticated animal" AND "pet", with "pet" having subclassOf "domesticated animal".
It is easy to solve, but users that want to mix items about subclasses of biota with items about names of these subclasses stand in the way. 178.5.32.201 12:33, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the heart of the problem. Yes, organisms have physical properties, which may be shared by a group of organisms (a taxon); names do not have physical properties. Yes, Wikidata muddles taxa and their names. However, as discussed at length at Property talk:P1420#taxon-centric, at present there's no known way of representing taxa in Wikidata and allowing different taxonomic views to be shown. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Even given the problems with multiple overlapping taxa, is there really a need for separate items for common names? Most taxa don't have them. Now we have three items for "dog", when 2 seems sufficient. Ghouston (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps the question should then be - Should wikidata aim to (attempt to) capture details of taxonomic histories and circumscriptions rather than serve as an index to Wikipedia entries that explain those subtleties? Shyamal (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: The problem you've identified here is only the tip of the iceberg. Currently Wikidata conflates taxons and taxon names into the same items. And thus when a species has multiple synonyms, things like heart rate, range maps, interwiki sitelinks, etc. get randomly spread among those various synonyms. See the lengthy discussion at Property_talk:P1420#Changing_this_to_a_string_property. Clearly the current system is not tenable. We probably need to do a project-wide RfC about this at some point. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

In practice, P3395 is not a property that applies to a taxon; it is a human-centric property, used for persons and for what are commonly perceived to have personalities, also (that is, pets). Thus there is no real conflict in these items. Just a case of raising trouble in this Project chat. - Brya (talk) 07:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It beggars belief that anyone with even a school-level education in biology would claim that only "persons and what are commonly perceived to have personalities" have a heart rate (for that is what heart rate (P3395) is). But if you really think that all I am doing in this section is "raising trouble", you know where the admin noticeboard is; raise your complaint there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
It beggars belief that anyone with even an average helping of common sense would go by surface appearances and would refuse to look at how a property is actually used. Wikidata has several properties that are used only for pets. - Brya (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Really, Brya? So what's Q15978631#P3395? Do we keep Homo sapiens (Q15978631) as pets, now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Well, I do. Don't you? - Jmabel (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Pigsonthewing: Maybe too busy with his tours of the East. Jheald (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Another example

P01069419 (Q55196248) is a physical object; a prepared specimen of plant material, in a museum collection. It is instance of (P31)=holotype (Q1061403), qualified of (P642)=Eugenia plurinervia (Q55195930). All well and good.

But holotype (Q1061403) is instance of (P31)=zoological nomenclature (Q3343211)+botanical nomenclature (Q3310776)+prokaryote nomenclature (Q27514375) (all three being, ultimately, subclasses of terminology (Q8380731)+naming convention (Q6961869)) and subclass of (P279)=type (Q3707858).

type (Q3707858), in turn, is instance of (P31)=biological nomenclature (Q522190) (again eventually a subclass of terminology (Q8380731)+naming convention (Q6961869)); and part of (P361)=taxonomy (Q8269924).

Is this right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Note also that this causes a constraint issue on the item's inventory number (P217). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
P01069419 (Q55196248) was created to describe the holotype (Q1061403) of Eugenia plurinervia (Q55195930) to be used with taxonomic type (P427). In this case the type (Q3707858) (a nomenclatural concept) itself is a preserved specimen (a individual sheet) held at Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (Q838691). In my opinion we should get rid of instance of (P31) qualified of (P642) constructs. And yes, all subclasses of type (Q3707858) need a review and remodeling. Do you have a proposal? --Succu (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"For better or worse, we should recognize that much of taxonomy's cumulative body of work is not well aligned with the requirements for ontological representation and reasoning." - Franz, NM ;Thau, D (2010) Biological taxonomy and ontology development: scope and limitations. Biodiversity Informatics 7:45-66. Shyamal (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
dog (Q144) does subclass domesticated animal (Q622852). ChristianKl❫ 09:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
So how do your remarks here are helping to find a workable solution, Shyamal and User:ChristianKl? --Succu (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Knowing the cause of a problem is part of the solution. I am not sure the few participants here who are discussing it in good faith should be expected to provide instant solutions when they were not around when the problem was created in the first place without much discussion. It seems clear that creating synonyms and names as items is best set aside for now until there is a larger discussion that examines a practical ontology and one that does not get archived out from here. Shyamal (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I know this paper very well, but it certainly does not support your conclusion. For me the essence is summarized as „[...] research along the taxonomy/ontology interface should focus either on strictly nomenclatural entities and relationships or on ontology-driven strategies for aligning multiple taxonomies, but not on building static networks for large portions of the tree of life.“ This is were WD could do a minor contribution. But this is not closely related to the issue raised above. --Succu (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
A useful step then would perhaps be to explain what kinds of queries you would be running from your ideal taxonomic database and what your results are expected to be. Shyamal (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
What's your „ideal taxonomic database“? I havn't one! See the paper you cited. What queries do you want to be answered? How many species exists is out of scope here. --Succu (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
You misread me - there was nothing mentioned anywhere above that had to do with wanting to know the number of species. I do not see an purpose in your statements other than dismissing discussion. Shyamal (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
A first goal should be to get the nomenclatural aspect running. Afterwards there is plenty room to do integrate all the different taxonomic viewpoints. --Succu (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think entities in the Q-namespace should be instance of (P31) of common name (Q502895). I think it's better to model names in our new datatypes than in the Q-namespace. We will have lexeme's for "dog" and "human" and any other species that might have the same problem. Ontology-wise that clears up the problems very well.
It does have the problem that this means "human" and "Mensch" wouldn't get interwikilinks from Wikidata anymore given that they are different lexemes but I think the amount of items is small enough that we can solve the issue with a bot that creates manual interwikilinks. ChristianKl❫ 15:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can't imagine how the new namespace could resolve all this issues. --Succu (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Taxa: needs to be sorted out

See eg phab:T199119#4412377 for the kind of unhappiness and confusion this gives newcomers to Wikidata. This ticket was to investigate walking up the subclass of (P279) tree (and others), to find additional keywords to add to indexes along with depicts (P180) values to facilitate image searches.

Items from the P279 tree above name (Q82799), such as sign (Q3695082), information (Q11028), and abstract object (Q7184903), are not helpful additions if one is looking for keywords to describe a picture of a parrot.

As a first suggestion, I would suggest abolishing forms such as dog (Q144)instance of (P31)  common name (Q502895) of (P642) ...

By dog (Q144) on Wikidata we mean something with four legs and a tail, that barks; not any sort of name.

The statement should be re-written dog (Q144)said to be the same as (P460)  Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265), subject has role (P2868) common name (Q502895) -- or a new property should be created for this specific usage. We currently appear to have about 750 such uses (tinyurl.com/y8aqjase), and they should be banished as soon as possible.

Canis familiaris (Q20717272)instance of (P31)  synonym (Q1040689) of (P642) Canis lupus familiaris (Q26972265) gives rise to similar problems, which should be similarly addressed.

Systematically removing these two patterns would go a long way to easing the problem. Jheald (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: I agree. Have you tried doing that, and if so, what happened? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
This could only be done case by case. The case eagle (Q2092297) is different from no label (Q1360840) which is different from no label (Q1493211). As far as I'm aware common name (Q502895) was often used in the past to reject duplicated taxon name (P225) statements, most of them coming from enwiki "taxoboxes". --Succu (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Succu: The latter two would be difficult to do automatically, because there is no of (P642) qualifier given. But would there be any objection to going ahead with this, in cases where there is a target given by P642 ? Jheald (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I prefer knowledge over automated "healing". I dislike instance of (P31) (and related) statements with qualified by of (P642) as well. Could you please give two or three non trivial examples you have in mind? --Succu (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: I think you missed my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Sorry to have been slow to get back to you. Rather max'd out with a number of other projects at the moment, plus real life :-) But I might make some trial edits next week, to see how they go down. Jheald (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, "instance of: common name" is a somewhat makeshift construction, but a "said to be the same as" (P460) construction won't work across the board as these are not necessarily symmetrical relationships. The same applies, but even more so, to "instance of: synonym : of" which is never reciprocal. In the latter case we actually need a separate property, "is a synonym of" or "is a synonym of taxon", the inverse of "taxon synonym" (P1420). - Brya (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
There's also permanent duplicated item (P2959) if an item is duplicated just for Wikipedia. Ghouston (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ideas for the future

Hello.

We now have 5,600 properties. Yet, none of them is centered on one of these. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

A good consideration. How did you identify this list? Is there a clever query we can run regularly to identify missing properties like this? --99of9 (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point being made. How does one centre properties around, say, Ethiopia (Q115)? What does it even mean? And why is a property such as DSM-5 (P1930) not centred around psychology (Q9418). All very puzzling. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Just because @GerardM: gets away with cryptic posts of this sort in the Wikidata Facebook group doesn't mean your own posts here should be cryptic, @Thierry Caro:. That being said, I'm sure Ethiopia, Pakistan, and Vietnam all most likely have census codes (and I'd be willing to work on Pakistani census codes if I were able to find any in a consistent place); I imagine @Beat Estermann: and others might find good properties related to dance, seeing as such folks have worked with theatre; I do wonder if there are Hinduism or Islam-related encyclopedias that we could create properties for (as we already have for the GAMEO and the Catholic Encyclopedia)—perhaps the same may be said for magic, circus, sociology, and psychology ontologies. Mahir256 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for calling a message like: these are important subjects and we know nothing about them "cryptic". That means that too little words are used for you to get the message. As you may know from Facebook, I have involved myself in bringing out more information about Africa, I use #AfricaGap as a hashtag, because there is so little data and the data that is there is of poor quality. Ethiopia is in Africa. These links is about its national politicians, the other is about its and geographic entities.
When you consider Africa, less than 1% of the humans in Wikidata is from Africa. The discrepancy is huge. Do you really think en.wp will call African sources notable? Not really. The information that I work with is fragmented and it is often wrong. However, it is 100% better than the no information we currently provide. The wrongness is often in it being outdated.
It is wonderful for the "pillars of our community" to easily dismiss the ideas of others. Obviously when it is pointed out that our data is lopsided and they want more where we have so much, it does not help when this is called out. When you consider how little money is spend on Wikidata, it is certainly a miracle. It works and it works well enough. But at the same time data on sources do not help us to indicate what sources are fake. We do not get a fair impression of our data at wikidata itself. Query is so necessary when you are not used to using tools like Scholia or Reasonator. (Being cryptic here but read my blog for clarification. \
As you write "gets away with cryptic posts" you certainly do not understand them and do not care. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@GerardM: The issue I and at least ten other people—judging from those who liked @Ijon:'s comment—had with your Facebook post, and which I see at least @Tagishsimon: had with Thierry's post above, was rather clearly not that either of you want to close the knowledge gap with respect to developing countries and other major subjects on Wikidata. It was never any indication of dismissal or a lack of caring for the point you were trying to make; you should have at least noticed in this instance, for example, that I have indicated some interest in some of Thierry's mentioned topics, some of which I am fully aware overlap with your own. I believe Asaf's comment was intended as an attempt to spell it out to you, but there is little use being brief if others do not see clarity in that brevity.
I cannot speak for what those others thought when seeing a Reasonator link accompanying your message, but there were multiple problems with the page (a general paucity of information? missing label translations? unorganized information layout?) that I could perceive upon seeing it, any of which could have been the problem indicated by your message when taken by itself. This inability on our part to determine what the problem may have been is in no way indicative of our thoughts on the problem you had in mind, and if the term 'cryptic' is too strong a word to describe your post in relation to others' misunderstanding of it, then I sincerely apologize as in that case I have in fact picked a bad choice of words. This, however, should not alter the need to be thorough and clear in all of your explanations the first time around.
In roughly this same vein, @Thierry Caro:, please understand that your comment definitely has the potential to confuse people when taken by itself (to suggest that this isn't the case is to deny Tagishsimon's personhood). I do think answering @99of9:'s questions helps add a great deal of necessary context, but this doesn't negate the ultimate benefit of it being there in the first place.
It is certainly a regrettable situation, Gerard, that not everyone may be immediately aware of your work on Africa-related topics, this work being praiseworthy in itself; even being well aware of this context myself through some of your blog posts and other on-wiki forums, I still had the confusion I expressed above. We are human after all, and it is only natural that some people will not immediately pick up the appropriate background for comprehending some messages on this page and elsewhere. As such it is always appropriate to repeat the appropriate information needed for context and to elaborate to the extent needed to eliminate ambiguity. Mahir256 (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you, Mahir, about the original post above being unclear, and about the difference between not understanding the intent of a post and not caring about that intent.
However, since you mentioned me by name, I feel I should point out to you that it was an incivil way to express your confusion to make that assertion about GerardM "getting away with it". Consider avoiding this kind of snark in the future, to increase the odds of being heard and understood by your interlocutors.
With much appreciation for your contributions, Ijon (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Talk about "on message". This whole thread is high jacked by the form of conversation, lack of understanding, and "how poor an idea was expressed". To be blunt, we are to be about the sum of all knowledge and Wikidata proves the extend we are little more than a stamp collection. Wikidata has a really strong data set about biomedics but it is years behind a project I was involved in, Wikiprotein, because it does NOT allow you to infer knowledge about what those papers stand for and it does not tell you anything about the validity of those papers. We are really strong improving on the gender gap and, yes it is important, but it is to the exclusion of everything else.
With red links associated with Wikidata items we will bring much tighter linking with Wikipedias, it will help combat fake news. But who has an interest in a plan that makes the Wikipedias less insular? The Cebuano Wikipedia is the best source for information on many subjects about Africa but who reads Cebuano? (with deep linking to Wikidata we would all know this). Both Wikipedia and Wikidata suffer from an ingrained preference for attention of itself and personal interests. It is how it discriminates and it is why it has hardly anything to offer to Africa.
PS When you learn about the growth of the Swahili Wikipedia on MuddyB's blog.. it is because of the Cebuano content, an easy to ignore fact. "We" at Wikidata boycot Cebuano. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Just chipping in here, since the reason we have properties for GAMEO and the Catholic encyclopedia is because people went out and created those freely accessible resources and Wikipedians like myself made use of them several times in Wikipedia articles, creating a basis for wider usage through Wikidata. We should create properties for all of these, like Jewish Encyclopedia (Q653922). We can really use these for all sorts of things (such as yet-to-be-described religious paintings) Are there any other religious encyclopedias? Same for native language encyclopedias. Jane023 (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

All characters from all movies?

Do we really want this? Look at roles in The Incredible Hulk (Q466611):

SELECT ?char ?charLabel WHERE {
 ?char wdt:P1441 wd:Q466611 .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}

Try it!

And look at their names (Cop, Driver...). I'd propose to delete them all. Opinions? --Infovarius (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Why? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Having a separate item for each role seems like a convenient solution. I'd say keep them. --Yair rand (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep them if someone has bothered up upload them. Ten years from now, one of the minor players might win an Oscar, and it would be cool to have their complete filmography here. - PKM (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
IMO it's one thing to list every single actor who played a bit role on that film's item, but I don't see much worth in creating items for all those unnamed characters (cab driver, female bartender, etc.), at least as long as they aren't referenced anywhere else.
And on another note: I'm a bit concerned about the large amount of data we've been copying from non-free databases like IMDb into Wikidata over time. --Kam Solusar (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this seems pointless past a certain point. There should be items only for the protagonists and for more minor characters appearing in multiple works. Thierry Caro (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
They may be relevant if one is interested in the representation of features like occupation, ethnicity, gender in films. There are also other questions (e.g.: what kind of occupations did an actor represent) where this information could be relevant. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

In theory if we could have it, would we want all data from IMBD? I think yes, right? Has there been previous discussion? All of these roles are tied to disambiguated actors who have their own Wikidata items and their own IMDb ID (P345). This means they connect at multiple points to other Wikidata content. This seems good to keep. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How to add a qualifier with "unknown value" via QuickStatements?

From the help page and searching online, I could not figure out how "unknown value" can be added programmatically with a qualifier for an item. My use case is: In the large collection of 20th century press archives (Q36948990), some folders contain a certain number of works (P3740), of which - due to intellectual property rights - only some are online (covered by the newly created number of works accessible online (P5592)). However, for some dossiers (started after 1948) which are still stored as paper or microform, we only know about the existence of the folder, but we don't know how many articles it actually contains. I think a good way to document this would be to add the P3740 qualifier to PM20 folder ID (P4293) with "unknown value" as value, but could not figure out how to do that (with Quickstatements or otherwise - the situation occurs in a large number of cases, so doing it manually is not an option.) Jneubert (talk) 07:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jneubert: Use placeholder for <somevalue> (Q53569537) as value. User:Pasleim has a bot that looks for these and changes them into <somevalue> when they are the value of a main statement. If we ask him nicely, he might extend it and make sure it works for qualifier values too. Jheald (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Are there similar items for no value / deprecated / preferred? Allowing rank to be specified as a temporary qualifier would be quite helpful. Jc86035 (talk) 09:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jc86035: I don't think so, at least not as yet. A similar "placeholder for <novalue>" along exactly the same lines should be very straightforward. For statements that are to be deprecated, I usually add a reason for deprecation (P2241) qualifier, and then ask at Bot Requests for somebody to deprecate all the statements marked that way in a particular group. But a better / more automated mechanism might be an idea. Perhaps a new property "edit request" that could take various values to request bot intervention? Would be useful to hear what eg Pasleim thinks. Jheald (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe something like "edit request find" (one each for QIDs, properties and strings), "edit request replace" (ditto, but not needed for deprecated, etc.), "edit request scope" (property / value / qualifier property / qualifier value), "edit request property scope" (PID)? I had to manually change a few dozen values of placeholder 1 (Q55560743) and placeholder 2 (Q55560744) because QuickStatements would not let me add a new statement with the same property and value as an existing statement. Jc86035 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: Just to make sure we talk about the same thing, I've manually made up an example (G. Meir) of what I want to achieve. In QS, it did not work for me to insert a non-numeric placeholder as the qualifier value - neither Q80596|P4293|"pe/012253"|P3740|Q53569537 nor a string like Q80596|P4293|"pe/012253"|P3740|"unknown_value". Both were rejected by QS as Error. So I suppose I didn't get your suggestion right. Jneubert (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jneubert: Ah... it's not working because Q53569537 is an item, but number of works (P3740) needs a number. So that's not going to go. Don't know what to suggest instead. Jheald (talk) 10:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, some artificial numeric value (like -9999999999) could work, but that's very special, could overlap with real values in unforeseen cases, and probably wouldn't work with strings or other datatypes. Jneubert (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me, if this is a often-before discussed issue - but is it known if the limitation of QS re. special values is just a limitation of the current QS syntax, or is the restriction imposed by the underlying API? Jneubert (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a limitation of QuickStatements. If it were the API, bots wouldn't be able to fix it and we wouldn't be able to add the statements manually either. - Nikki (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanksworthily, User:Maxlath has extended wd-cli to handle no_value and unknown_value claims in statements and in qualifiers!
The following commands worked for me in order to qualify the first PM20 folder ID (P4293) property for A. Miller with an "unknown" number of articles:
        claim_guid=`wd data Q80596 | jd 'claims.P4293.0.id'`
        wd aq $claim_guid P3740 '{"snaktype":"somevalue"}'
This should be scriptable for a large number of items (will apply for an according extension of my bot accout). Thanks again to everybody involved! --Jneubert (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Similar items

Is online service (Q19967801) the same as service on internet (Q1668024)? I think they're about the same thing but I'm not sure. Jc86035 (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

There are overlapping sitelinks to dewiki. According to them, online service (Q19967801) describes specific services offered via Internet (e.g. Wikidata (Q2013), Gmail (Q9334), or Facebook (Q355)), while service on internet (Q1668024) is a rather technical concept that refers to services like email (Q9158), World Wide Web (Q466), Secure Shell (Q170460), Usenet (Q193162), and so on, which one can use via the Internet (Q75). I have not looked at the other sitelinks. —MisterSynergy (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: Thanks. I asked because instances of online service (Q19967801) are not currently valid for online service (P2361) per property constraint, which seems odd to me because the property is broad enough to encompass ISPs as well as other online services. Should I just add online service (Q19967801) to the property constraint? Jc86035 (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I've added it. Jc86035 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

first line / last line

Can a song use first line (P1922)?

I think the common sense answer is yes, but this is problematic because songs don't usually have line breaks or punctuation. Different sources might split lines differently; for example, one source might split the lyrics by clause instead of by sentence. Furthermore, it's often not clear what the difference is between vocalizations in a song which aren't part of the lyrics and vocalizations which are. Jc86035 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I think one has to rely on the source, report what the source said. Have two P1922s if there is more than one source telling more than one story. Agree that 'yes' is the overall answer. (I guess it must be possible that different publications of the same poem will have the same issue.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

How would you call this?

Top of the item page Q42 on Wikidata, with the content of the termbox (language, label, description, alias) selected.

Hello all,

The development team is currently working on the termbox, to improve it both on desktop and mobile versions. While doing some user research, we realize that we don't have a clear name for the content of this zone on Wikidata: the combination of languages, labels, descriptions, and aliases. This is an issue for us, because if we want to work on things, we need to name them properly first.

Before having an official voting or anything, I wanted to ask you: do you already have a name in mind? How do you describe this specific zone, when you're showing Wikidata to someone, for example? And if you never thought about this before, what name would make sense for you? :)

Thanks a lot! Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It's worse than you think. We don't have an official term for the interface that presents this box. That is, if, from the Wikidata main page, you click "Random item" on the left edge of the window, you are taken to an interface that displays information about a random item. We don't have an official name for this interface. This is important because this interface behaves differently from some other interface, such as the API, so it's necessary to have a word for the (whatever it is) when discussing how it differs from other interfaces. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
What about "item characterization (table)"? --Micru (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I usually describe it as "the box with the labels, descriptions, etc". The only I can think of that would work better than term box would be "names and descriptions box" (where "better" means people should be able to work out what that is without any explanation - if it has to be explained, we might as well stick to term box) . - Nikki (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The "header" for each "language" consists of a "label" and a "description". It can include one or several "aliases".
    --- Jura 11:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Had the same problem in WEF. Chose "labelalikes" as a term. Still looking for better. -- VlSergey (трёп) 12:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • something referring to onomatology ? TheDJ (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "Labels, descriptions, and aliases". - Jmabel (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • How about "legend"? --Yair rand (talk) 03:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "language section", similar to "identifier section"? --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Egg yolk

Hi, I'm trying to sort the entries on the egg yolk ... egg yolk (Q181409), yolk (Q16336079) and the egg yolk (Q1302994).

If I understand correctly, there is one for yolk, one for egg yolk and one for chicken egg yolk ... but interwikis links are also big mess. Mikani (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #324

Thanks for the update! I am curious, is there a Phabricator task (or any other way) I can follow to see how far Senses are from being actually deployed? Or could you just give us a guesstimate? Cheers, --Denny (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Denny: The Senses column in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/lexicographical_data/ shows what's left for the first release from my side. Everything else is done and can be tested https://wikidata.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Lexeme:L1. If you find anything major is missing let me know. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The query minerals named after women mentioned above uses the syntax WITH ... AS %name and INCLUDE %name. This seems to be a useful extension to standard SPARQL. Is it Wikidata specific? Are there other such syntax extensions? Toni 001 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This is called a “named subquery”, and it is a SPARQL extension within Blazegraph, the software behind the Wikidata Query Service. —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

request to rename "UTSA Roadrunners"

Am very familiar with Wikipedia, much less so with Wikidata. We have:

The second seems to be about the football team and should be renamed accordingly. In Wikipedia, this would be accomplished via the "Move" link and then renaming as "UTSA Roadrunners football". Would appreciate if someone could review and resolve, such that the football content follows the expected naming convention.

Here are examples of the expected naming conventions:

etc

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: Done. UTSA Roadrunners football (Q7876032). For ref, it's the edit link to the top right of the label box you want; and then just edit the label. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Got it, thank you! UW Dawgs (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Which ISBN should I use for books?

Hi. I`m editing My Philosophical Development (Q6946277) and there are multiple ISBN-10 (P957) (and isbn-13 too) for this book. Should I use the ISBN of the first edition of the book, or is there a better way to input ISBN of books? Tetizeraz (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's ok to have more than one claim for the same property on an item, if you have sources that state that. However, for books we probably should have separate items for each edition - see Wikidata:WikiProject Books for further discussion on the books data model here (where I note that ISBN is mentioned as a property of the edition, not of the work itself). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
ISBN-13 supersedes ISBN-10, and the latter can be calculated from the former. Arthur is correct about items for each edition, but where such items do not yet exist, I tend to use the ISBN from the first edition, (hardback if applicable), if I can find it. But any valid ISBN is better then none! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tetizeraz: In 1959 the ISBN standard did not exist. So you have to follow the recommendation at Wikidata:WikiProject Books. --Succu (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @ArthurPSmith and @Succu! Tetizeraz (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
i use the isbn13 from a first edition, if i can find it. worldcat is a fine source.[3] oclc number works also. isbn is more a stock number, oclc is a library database number. reports are isbn10 breaks sometimes. Slowking4 (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Specific subclasses

Is it ok to create specific subclasses rather than generic ones? For instance, I created no label (Q56016208) to be able to group/distinguish different railway station (Q55488) within the Amtrak (Q23239) system. Example: Kissimmee station (Q6417209). Or is it better to use some sort of qualifier? Would it be better to use of (P642) with railway station (Q55488)? U+1F360 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It depends on the domain (for example we do NOT do this for people, who should always be instance of human (Q5)), but generally yes this is fine. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's ideal in this case. Kissimmee station (Q6417209) is apparently not even owned by Amtrak, and also services SunRail (Q3503715) trains. I don't see any property that's relevant though. Airports don't have a property for airlines using the airport either. Ghouston (talk) 00:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I could create an item "Qantas airport" and make every airport where Qantas has had a service an instance, but it doesn't seem very desirable. Ghouston (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: So what would you recommend? --U+1F360 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It depends what the purpose is. The property Amtrak station code (P4803) will identify the station as one serving Amtrak trains. used by (P1535) is another option. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Not always identifiable by this way, there are also London Overground stations that have UK railway station code (P4755) --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
You'd kinda expect London Overground stations to have UK railway station code (P4755). London Overground is that part of the regular railway system operated by TfL; it manages some stations, uses stations managed by other ToCs, etc. Meanwhile, the property Amtrak station code (P4803) will identify the station as one serving Amtrak trains. That's just the way it is. Not many Amtrak trains passing through UK stations. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: Well there isn't a station code for a no label (Q56016143), but I could use used by (P1535) if that makes more sense? --U+1F360 (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@U+1F360: Yes, that works (at least in my head). used by (P1535) SunRail (Q3503715) conveys the meaning. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Promotional Q56036453

See no label (Q56036453) and the accompanying tweet. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Bless. SEO ftw. I've pruned the three items added by our new American entrepreneur- Internet business owner and search engine optimization (SEO) expert friend & dropped a note on his talk page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Different Language Wikipedia Article Conflicts for Game "Dandy"

There is a video game called "Dandy" that was released in 1983 for the Atari 8-bit line of computers, and then was substantially altered version and released for other platforms in 1986. The versions were different enough that the game database MobyGames lists the versions under separate articles. The English Wikipedia article for the video game Dandy (Q5215764) focuses primarily on the 1983 version but also lists the platforms it was later released on and only mentions the later versions in a single sentence under the section "Legacy". In contrast, the Italian Wikipedia article describes only the 1986 version and mentions that it is based on the 1983 version, which is linked to as [4], an article that doesn't exist.

My question is, since the English article is about both versions of the game, should the Wikidata item for the English article Dandy (Q5215764) contain a duplicate of all of the information from the Wikidata item for the Italian article Dandy (Q25409308), including database identifiers that are supposed to be unique? Is there a standard policy for when the content in Wikipedia articles for different languages doesn't line up and causes conflicts/redundancies like this? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the enwiki article is about the 1983 version. The other versions are only mentioned briefly in the "legacy" section. It's like en:Barack Obama which is about Barack Obama despite having a "legacy" section that mentions other things. Ghouston (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ghouston: I think you are right that the article is mostly about the 1983 version. An issue I see is that the platform and release date in the infobox on the right include the information for both versions. Should the Wikidata item Dandy (Q5215764) for this article exclude information about the later version in its platform and release date sections? And do you have a recommendation for what property to use to link this item with the item Dandy (Q25409308) for the second version, based on the Italian article? Perhaps modified version of (P5059)? Rampagingcarrot (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
In general, the Wikidata item should be about a coherent thing in the world, more than about a Wikipedia article (which is bound to evolve over time anyway). So I would think Dandy (Q5215764) should exclude information about the later version, but it can use followed by (P156) or replaced by (P1366) to refer to the distinct item for the later release. - Jmabel (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thank you Jmabel, that makes sense. Rampagingcarrot (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rampagingcarrot: I usually use based on (P144) to link the second item to the first in such cases. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Huh, realising only now − I had sorted out already both of these items back in June :-þ Jean-Fred (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: Haha yes I did see you but wasn't sure if you had made the connection between the two! Rampagingcarrot (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Population of 2 villages

Hello. In an old census, the populations of two villages are counted together as one. In there a way to add this information to both villages items? Or we should not add that information because is about both villages? Xaris333 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

First thought is that you need a new item called 'village 1 plus village 2' with a description of 'villages combined for census purposes'; and join the discrete village items to the new item using part of (P361). I think you cannot add the value to the two discrete items since it is always about more then any one of them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
After that old census, all the other census have separate population for each village. So, its useless to do that. They were always 2 villages, never one. Xaris333 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sadly, that's the structure the data calls for, if you want to use it at all. They were always two villages, but they were combined as a census area. That's life. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata list problem.

User:Xaris333/Test. Can anyone understand what is wrong with the query? I have the same query with Q59150 in the place of Q59133 and is working. Xaris333 (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like none of the villages or municipalities of Paphos District have area (P2046) statements, and so are all excluded from the results. See, for instance:
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?area
WHERE
{ 
  ?item wdt:P131 wd:Q59133 .
  {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q29414133 .}
  UNION
  {?item wdt:P31 wd:Q16739079 . }
  optional {?item wdt:P2046 ?a .}
  BIND(REPLACE(STR(?a),"\\.",",") AS ?area) .
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}
Try it! --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Xaris333 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/cover page

Hello.Please close this proposal which deleted From the list by bot.Thanks --David (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I will try to fix it. Somehow it keeps getting archived.
    --- Jura 13:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikidata:Notability apply to places

Does Wikidata:Notability apply to places? For instance, should instances of church (Q16970) be added to Wikidata? If it does apply to places, how does "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" work? Does it's very existence as a physical place qualify (especially since it is a named physical place)? I understand that we wouldn't want to have every single addressed place in the world, but perhaps if they are named places that's ok? --U+1F360 (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@U+1F360: We still struggle to explain what to include but every church in the common understanding of the concept should have a Wikidata item. Notability is established on the basis of having more structured data. Lots of buildings and organizations can have structured data.
There is a sense of persistence also, so a transient concept like pulling government registration records of businesses and nonprofit organizations which never do anything after registering (a common situation) is out of bounds. Typical churches will occupy land, connect to a larger organizational body, report finances, and expel data into the digital record. Model them all if you have references that you can cite and integrate! Emphasize the data sources over just the entities. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Notability applies to every record. I think the latter part of criteria 2 is in part the key: "it can be described using serious and publicly available references". Churches surely fall into that category by virtue of publications like Crockford's Clerical Directory (Q5187367) and counterparts around the world. Of course, in truth, many/most addressed places in the (western?) world have 'serious and publicly available references', especially as government property databases become accessible as a result of open data initiatives. So value judgement or the application of so-called common sense is still required - Blue Rasberry's example is good - if we are to escape the importation of, say, the contents of the collected telephone directory (Q220393) of the world. Where the line is drawn will differ from one person to the next; but, equally, there is no scarcity of space on wikidata for new records and so I think we can lean towards a liberal interpretation of our guidelines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both so much! --U+1F360 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Multi-disc track listings

With tracklist (P658), how is it possible to indicate that a track is on the second CD of an album or has a non-integer track number? I thought using a generic identifier property might work, but it might be better to use a track-specific property if none exists (particularly since a specific property could have the format standardized to {side or CD}–{track number}). Jc86035 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

series ordinal (P1545), as you presumably realised, given your subsequent question about that property, below Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jc86035 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

series ordinal

Why is series ordinal (P1545) a string and not a number? Jc86035 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I think the explanation on property talk page still stands.
    --- Jura 17:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Probably because we don't have a datatype "number". We have "quantity", but that's not suitable; and is cardinal, not ordinal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jc86035 (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Topology

How could circle route (Q145179) and ring road (Q510662) be linked based on their geometry? subclass of (P279)Jordan curve (Q1392659) is too specific because not all of them form closed loops. Jc86035 (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How about shape (P1419)? --Okkn (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Okkn: Okay, that seems vague enough to be uniformly applicable. Thanks. Jc86035 (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

pt.wikipedia captcha sucks

pt.wikipedia has a stupid captcha on it which I cannot get through. (also wtf.) Is there anyone here with the patience & language skills to get something done there? This was what I was wanting to post:

Hi. Please have a look at w:pt:If Looks Could Kill and w:pt:Teen Agent. They are the same film, which was released under these two names in different territories. See, for instance, w:en:If Looks Could Kill (film) or imdb.

Please let me know when they are merged so that I can merge the wikidata item. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Guilhermebm: has kindly posted a note on pt.wiki - thanks Guilhermebm, much appreciated. Please don't let that stop anyone merging the articles ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon: no problem, glad to help! I've never had to fill a captcha there, so I don't know how it is hahaha. Anyway, I'd do the merging, but in this case I don't know what the proper procedure would be, so I prefer to wait for someone with more experience. Best regards! Guilhermebm (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
No. Looks scary. But the merge has been done by user:Caio!, for which many thanks. I would post my thanks on pt.wiki, but as well as the captcha, my short note saying thanks was recognised by pt.wiki as being likely vandalism. smh. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Tagishsimon (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)